t\\^ 


^Vl 


©xrlwraMa  Wnivtvsitn 
in  titoe  ©its  of  Hatr  %ovU 


GIVEN    BY 


5uj1  *L Rlulk-R 


T 


Great 
American  Legislators 


SOURCE  EXTRACTS 


BY 


HOWARD  W.  CALDWELL,  A.M. 

PROFESSOR  OF  AMERICAN  HISTORY  IN  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  NEBRASKA 


New  York : 

WILLIAM    BEVERLEY    HARISON 

No.  5  West  18th  Street. 


Great 
American  Legislators 


SOURCE  EXTRACTS 


BY 


HOWARD  W.  CALDWELL,  A.M. 

PROFESSOR  OF  AMERICAN  HISTORY  IN  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  NEBRASKA. 


Chicago,  Illinois 

j.  n.  MILLER,  Publisher 

1900 


COPYRIGHTED,  1900, 

BY 

J.  H.  MILLER. 


CONTENTS 

CHAP.  TAGB 

Introduction v, 

I.  t        Albert  Gallatin 1 

II.  John  Quincy  Adams 27 

III.  Henry  Clay 57 

IV.  Daniel  Webster 75 

V.  John  C.  Calhoun 99 

VI.  Charles  Sumner 123 

VII.  Stephen  A.  Douglas ,  147 

VIII.  William  H.  Seward 171 

IX.  Salmon  P,  Chase 93 

X.  James  G.  Blaine 215 


29860S 


INTRODUCTION 

METHODS  of  teaching  history  are  in  proc- 
ess of  transformation.  With  the 
change  in  method  comes  the  demand 
for  new  books;  so  if  anyone  asks  the  reason 
for  this  little  collection  of  sources  on  Ameri- 
can history,  the  answer  is  believed  to  be  found 
in  this  change.  The  compiler  is  pleased  to 
know  that  these  studies  have  been  received 
with  favor  by  many  progressive  teachers.  He 
feels  that  the  lack  of  proper  and  available  ma- 
terial is  one  reason  that  the  "  laboratory 
method"  has  not  found  more  ready  acceptance 
in  the  past  by  a  larger  number  of  teachers. 
In  the  belief  that  this  collection  will  in  part 
supply  the  demand,  it  is  now  sent  forth  to  the 
school-world  in  this  more  permanent  form. 

In  many  Normal  schools  and  in  some  high 
schools  brief  reviews  are  demanded  and  given. 
In  such  cases  it  seems  to  the  writer  to  be  a 
waste  of  time  to  hurry  through  some  text 
book,  repeating  the  work  that  has  been  done 
in  the  grades,  in  perchance  even  a  less  efficient 
way.  It  is  hoped  and  believed  that  the  fol- 
lowing ten  ; '  studies ' '  help  to  solve  the  problem 
of  such  reviews.  A  few  suggestions  are  made 
in  regard  to  the  method  of  handling  this  ma- 
terial. A  note-book  should  be  in  the  hand  of 
every  pupil.  It  is  desirable  to  have  this  made 
up  of  loose  sheets  of  paper,  perforated,  so  that 
they  may  be  bound  together,  or  removed  and 
changed  in  place  at  the  will  of  the  pupil.  A 
cover  should  be  made  or  purchased  in  which 
to  keep  and  preserve  these  sheets. 


Vi.  INTRODUCTION. 

The  next  and  most  important  matter  is  to 
bring  the  students  into  contact  with  the  origi- 
nal material  as  often  and  as  completely  as  possi- 
ble. For  this  purpose,  of  course  the  f<  sources" 
must  be  accessible,  and  as  far  as  possible  in 
the  hands  of  every  pupil.  It  should  be  noted 
here  again  that  it  is  not  expected  that  the 
larger  part  even  of  the  facts  of  history  can  be 
obtained  from  these  sources,  so  a  good  narra- 
tive text  must  be  at  hand,  and  in  constant  use. 
The  "sources"  are  to  be  used  for  the  purpose 
of  illustrating  how  the  narrative  history  was 
formed;  but  more  especially  for  the  mental 
training  which  may  be  obtained  from  their  use. 
The  same  document  or  illustrative  extract 
should  be  in  the  hands  of  every  member  of  the 
class  that  each  may  have  the  benefit  of  the 
criticism  of  all. 

With  the  material  then  in  the  hands  of  the 
class,  the  first  question  will  be  to  determine  as 
far  as  possible  its  value.  To  do  this  necessitates 
that  we  find  out  whether  the  document  is  what  it 
purports  to  be;  then  to  determine  whether  we 
have  a  correct  copy  of  it.  Next  we  must  find 
out  who  wrote  it,  and  under  what  circum- 
stances. Finally,  the  character  of  the  author 
will  come  under  discussion.  Did  he  have  the 
opportunity  to  know  ?  Was  he  able,  honest,  ed- 
ucated? Was  he  writing  for  partisan  ends,  or 
did  he  attempt  to  tell  the  exact  truth?  These 
are  a  few  of  the  tests  we  must  apply  to  our 
material,  if  we  are  to  know  its  real  value. 
Perhaps  the  most  important  question  of  all  will 
be,  did  the  writer  know  of  his  own  personal 
knowledge,  or  did  he  gain  his  information 
from  hearsay?     After  we  have  determined  the 


INTROD  TJCTION  Vll . 

value  of  our  "source,"  we  next  proceed  to 
analyze  it,  and  to  find  out  just  what  the  writer 
meant.  Here  we  must  notice  the  use  and 
meaning  of  words  at  the  time  the  document 
was  written,  and  note  any  changes  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  so  that  we  may  get  just  the  idea  in- 
tended to  be  conveyed.  A  series  of  questions 
will  often  greatly  help  in  this  analysis.  The 
ones  given  in  the  text  are  only  intended  to  be 
suggestive,  and  so  may  be  supplemented  by 
others,  or  limited  by  omissions. 

The  next  step  will  be  to  classify  and  arrange 
our  knowledge.  In  the  writer's  opinion  this 
is  the  hardest,  as  well  as  the  most  important, 
part  of  the  work.  A  logical  arrangement 
must  be  insisted  on.  A  careful  outline  must 
be  prepared,  containing  a  page  reference  to 
every  point  in  the  notes.  It  is  only  by  this 
careful  preparation  that  accuracy  in  thinking 
or  in  writing  can  ever  be  secured.  When  this 
work  is  completed,  then  the  last  step  in  the 
plan  can  be  taken  with  great  ease  and  facility, 
for  then  the  whole  mind  and  strength  can  be 
concentrated  on  the  composition.  The  mem- 
ory under  such  circumstances  is  not  burdened 
with  carrying  all  the  details.  They  are  indi- 
cated in  the  outline  and  in  the  notes  to  which 
it  refers.  It  goes  without  saying  that  every 
piece  of  student  work  when  completed  should 
be  tested  by  comparing  it  with  the  best  narra- 
tive texts,  or  Avith  the  teacher's  knowledge.  _ 

One  final  idea  should  be  suggested.  Each 
of  these  studies  covers  many  years  of  time. 
The  evolution  of  the  topic  has  been  kept 
in  mind  in  making  the  extracts.  In  work- 
ing up    the   material    then    into   papers   and 


Vlll.  INTRODUCTION. 

reports,  the  teacher  should  see  that  the  pupil 
has  noted  and  understood  the  changes  and  the 
reasons  therefor.  For  example,  if  the  topic 
be  the  "Economic  History"  of  the  United 
States,  great  pains  should  be  taken  to  call  the 
attention  to  the  changes  in  belief  in  regard  to 
the  tariff,  or  internal  improvements.  Let 
every  effort  be  bent  to  discovering  the  causes 
of  these  changes.  If  Webster  cease  to  be  a 
free  trader,  the  reason  for  the  change  should 
be  found  if  possible.  If  the  South  oppose  in- 
ternal improvements,  let  the  cause  be  un- 
earthed. 

These  studies,  then,  are  committed  to  my 
fellow  teachers. in  the  hope  that  they  may  aid 
them  a  little  in  solving  the  difficult  problem 
of  how  to  get  our  children  to  understand  their 
own  history,  and  to  get  such  an  understand- 
ing in  such  a  way  as  to  make  them  men- 
tally and  morally  stronger,  that  they  may  be 
better  prepared  to  meet  the  exceedingly  diffi- 
cult questions  which  will  confront  the  coming 
generation.  The  writer  has  no  extravagant 
ideas  or  expectations  in  regard  to  the  trans- 
forming power  of  these  studies.  He  simply 
hopes  and  believes  that  they  will  be  found  to 
be  an  aid. 

H.  W.  C. 


ALBERT  GALLATIN 


Born  in  Switzerland,  1761.  Came  to  America, 
1781.  Member  of  Pennsylvania  legislature. 
Senator  of  United  States,  1794— rejected. 
Member  of  House  of  Representatives,  1794-1801. 
Secretary  of  treasury,  1801-1813.  Peace  com- 
missioner, 1813-1814.  Ambassador  to  France, 
1815-1823.  Ambassador  to  court  of  St.  James, 
1826-1829.  Nominated  for  Vice-President,  1824— 
withdrew.  Banker  last  years  of  life  in  New 
York.    Died,  1849. 


CHAPTER  I 
ALBERT  GALLATIN 

THIS  year  we  are  to  have  a  series  of  char- 
acter studies  for  our  source  work. 
The  aim  will  be  to  let,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, each  man  "give  an  account  of  him- 
self." Since  the  aim  is  to  study  men,  rather 
than  the  history  of  their  times,  the  extracts 
chosen  will  be  primarily  for  that  purpose,  but 
incidentally  it  is  hoped  and  expected  that  much 
light  will  be  thrown  on  the  times.  In  a  suc- 
ceeding number  something  will  be  said  in  re- 
gard to  method  again,  but  no  great  amount  of 
space  will  be  taken  up  with  that  work.  Trust- 
ing that  some  of  America's  great  statesmen 
will  mean  more  from  these  studies  to  the  youth 
of  many  a  school,  the  series  is  launched  with 
Albert  Gallatin,  scholar,  statesman,  orator, 
diplomat,  and  scientist. 

Gallatin's  connection  with  American  history 
may  be  said  to  begin  with  this  letter: 

Passy,  May  24,  1780. 
Dear  Son— Messrs.  Gallatin  and  Serres,  two  young 
gentlemen  of  Geneva,  of  good  families  and  very  good 
characters,  having  an  inclination  to  see  America,  if 
they  should  arrive  in  your  city  I  recommend  them  to 
your  civilities,  counsel,  and  countenance. 
I  am  ever  your  affectionate  father, 

B.  Franklin. 
To  Richard  Bache,  Postmaster  General,  Philadelphia. 
— Adams'  Life  of  Gallatin,  p.  2f 


ALBERT   GALLATIN.  O 

An  extract  from  the  action  of  the  President 
and  Fellows  of  Harvard  College,  July  2,  1782, 
will  indicate  how  Gallatin  made  his  living  for  a 
time: 

Vote  5.  That  Mr.  Gallatin  *  *  *  be  per- 
mitted to  instruct  in  the  French  language  such  of  the 
students  as  desire  it,  and  who  shall  obtain  permission 
from  their  parents  or  guardians  in  writing,  signified 
under  their  hands  to  the  President;  which  students 
shall  be  assessed  in  their  quarter-bills  the  sums  agreed 
for  with  Mr.  Gallatin  for  their  instruction;  and  that 
Mr.  Gallatin  be  allowed  the  use  of  the  library,  a  cham- 
ber in  the  college,  and  commons  at  the  rate  paid  by  the 
tutors,  if  he  desire.  Joseph  Willard,  President. 
—Adams'  Life  of  Gallatin,  p.  1*2. 

In  1783  when  he  left  Harvard  he  carried  with 
him  the  good-will  of  all,  as  the  following  testi- 
monials will  show.  The  President  *•  *  * 
said: 

[Mr.  Gallatin  had]  acquitted  himself  in  this  de- 
partment with  great  reputation.  He  appears  to  be 
well  acquainted  with  letters,  and  has  maintained  an 
unblemished  character  in  the  university  and  in  this 
part  of  the  country. — Ibid,  43. 

Three  years  later  we  find  Gallatin  in  close 
touch  with  P.  Henry,  and  Virginia,  In  a 
letter  of  recommendation  and  introduction 
Henry  says: 

*  *  *  I  feel  it  my  duty  in  a  peculiar  manner 
to  give  every  possible  facility  to  this  gentleman,  be- 
cause his  personal  character,  as  well  as  his  present 
designs,  entitle  him  to  the  most  cordial  regards. 

P.  Henry,  1785, 

-Ibid.,  60. 

Albert     Gallatin    was    married     to    Sophia 
Allegre  in  a  runaway  match,  May  14,  1789. 
In  his  account  book  appears  the  following  entries: 


4  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

Ruban  de  queue,  1-6,  Veste  blanche,  9,  Tailleur,  £2, 
16s.  Souliers  de  satin,  gants,  bague  £1,  11.6,  License 
minister,  .£4,4.        *        *        * 

The  following  letter  throws  some  light  on 
one  episode  in  Gallatin's  history: 

New  Kent,  May  16,  1789. 

My  Dear  Mama— Shall  I  venture  to  write  you  a  few 
lines  in  apology  for  my  late  conduct?  And  dare  I 
natter  myself  that  you  will  attend  to  them?  If  so,  and 
you  can  feel  a  motherly  tenderness  for  your  child  who 
never  before  wilfully  offended  you,  forgive,  dear 
mother,  and  generously  accept  again  your  poor  Sophia, 
who  feels  for  the  uneasiness  she  is  sure  she  has  oc- 
casioned you.  She  deceived  you,  but  it  was  for  her 
own  happiness.  Could  you  then  form  a  wish  to  destroy 
the  future  peace  of  your  child  and  prevent  her  being 
united  to  the  man  of  her  choice?  He  is  perhaps  not  a 
very  handsome  man,  but  be  is  possessed  of  more  essen- 
tial qualities,  which  I  shall  not  pretend  to  enumerate, 
as,  coming  from  me,  they  might  be  supposed  partial. 
If,  mama,  your  heart  is  inclined  to  forgive,  or,  if  it  is 
not,  let  me  beg  you  to  write  to  me,  as  my  only  anxiety 
is  to  know  whether  I  have  lost  your  affection  or  not. 
Forgive  me,  dear  mama,  as  it  is  all  that  is  wanted  to 
complete  the  happiness  of  her  who  wishes  for  your 
happiness  and  desires  to  be  considered  again  your 
dutiful  daughter.  SOPHIA, 

—Ibid.,  72. 

She  died  the  following  October. 

The  position  of  Gallatin  during  the  first  days 
after  the  constitution  was  submitted  to  the  peo- 
ple may  be  gathered  from  the  following  resolu- 
tions, adopted  at  a  second  convention,  held  at 
Harrisburg,  1788. 

1st.  Resolved  that  in  order  to  prevent  a  dissolution 
of  the  Union,  and  to  secure  our  liberties  and  those  of 
our  posterity,  it  is  necessary  that  a  revision  of  the 
Federal  Constitution  be  obtained  in  the  most  speedy 
manner. 

2d.  That  the  safest  manner  to  obtain  such  a  revi- 
sion will  be.        *       *       *       ,  to  have  a  convention 


ALBERT    GALLATIN.  5 

[  a  second  national  convention  ]  called  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible;    *      *. 

3d.  That  in  order  that  the  friends  to  amendments 
of  the  Federal  Constitution  *  *  may  act  in 
concert,  *  *  it  is  hereby  recommended  to  the 
several  counties  in  the  state  to  appoint  committees, 
who  may  correspond  one  with  another  and  with  such 
similar  committees  as  may  be  formed  in  other  states. 

4th.   [  A  call  for  a  general  convention.  ] 

A  less  radical  set  of  resolutions  were  adopted;  and, 
as  both  are  in  Gallatin's  handwriting,  we  cannot  de- 
termine whether  he  changed  his  views,  or  was  over- 
ruled at  the  conference.  The  final  result  was  to  recom- 
mend twelve  amendments,  similar  to  those  already 
suggested  by  Massachusetts  and  New  York,  to  the 
constitution.  — I  bid. ,  78. 

Gallatin  has  left  us  an  account  of  his  influ- 
ence in  the  Pennsylvania  legislature  and  the 
reasons  therefor: 

I  acquired  an  extraordinary  influence  in  that  body, 
the  more  remarkable  as  I  was  always  in  a  party  minor- 
ity. I  was  indebted  for  it  to  my  great  industry  and  to 
the  facility  with  which  I  could  understand  and  carry 
on  the  current  business.  The  laboring  oar  was  left  al- 
most exclusively  to  me.  In  the  session  of  1791-92,  I 
was  put  on  thirty-five  committees,  prepared  all  their 
reports,  and  drew  all  their  bills.         *        *        * 

I  failed,  though  the  bill  I  had  introduced  passed  the 
House,  in  my  efforts  to  lay  the  foundation  for  a  better 
system  of  education.  Primary  education  was  almost 
universal  in  Pennsylvania,  but  very  bad,  and  the  bulk 
of  the  schoolmasters  incompetent,  miserably  paid,  and 
held  in  no  consideration.  It  appeared  to  me  that 
*  *  N  intermediate  academic  education  was  an 
indispensable  preliminary  step;  and  the  object  of  the 
bill  was  to  establish  in  each  county  an  academy,  allow- 
ing to  each  out  of  the  treasury  a  sum  equal  to  that 
raised  by  taxation  in  the  county  for  its  support.  But 
there  was  at  that  time  in  Pennsylvania  a  Quaker  an'?  a 
German  opposition  to  every  plan  of  general  education. 
The  spirit  of  internal  improvements  had  not  yet  been 
awakened.     Still,  the  first  turnpike  road  in  the  United 


6  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

States  was  that  from  Philadelphia  to  Lancaster.  * 
This,  as  well  as  every  temporary  improve- 
ment in  our  communications  (roads  and  rivers  and 
preliminary  surveys,  met,  of  course,  with  my  warm 
support  But  it  was  in  the  fiscal  department  that  I 
was  particularly  employed.        *        *        * 

The  report  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  * 
*  *  was  entirely  prepared  by  me.  *  *  * 
I  was  quite  astonished  at  the  general  encomiums  be- 
stowed upon  it,  and  was  not  at  all  aware  that  I  had 
done  so  well.  It  was  perspicuous  and  comprehensive; 
but  I  am  confident  that  its  true  merit,  and  that  which 
gained  me  the  general  confidence,  was  its  being  founded 
in  strict  justice,  without  the  slightest  regard  to  party 
feelings  or  popular  prejudices.         *        *        * 

It  was  my  constant  assiduity  to  business  and  the  as- 
sistance derived  from  it  by  many  members  which  en- 
abled the  Republican  party  in  the  legislature,  then  a 
minority  on  joint  ballot,  to  elect  me,  and  no  other  but 
me  of  that  party,  senator  of  the  United  States. — Ibid., 
p.  85-86. 

In  1793  Gallatin  prepared  the  following 
report: 

That  they  [the  committee]  are  of  opinion  that  slav- 
ery is  inconsistent  with  every  principle  of  humanity, 
justice,  and  right,  and  repugnant  to  the  spirit  and  ex- 
press letter  of  the  constitution  of  this  commonwealth. 
*      *       *       [A  bill  to  abolish  introduced.]—  Ibid.,  86 

In  1792  Gallatin  formulated  the  reasons  for 
the  opposition  of  the  western  counties  of  Penn- 
sylvania to  the  excise  tax  in  these  words : 

Our  peculiar  situation  renders  this  duty  still  more 
unequal  and  oppressive  to  us.  Distant  from  a  perma- 
nent market  and  separated  from  the  eastern  coast  by 
mountains  *  *  *  ,  we  have  no  means  of 
bringing  the  produce  of  our  lands  to  sale,  either  in  grain 
or  in  meal.  We  are  therefore  distillers  through  neces- 
sity, not  choice,  that  we  may  comprehend  the  greatest 
value  in  the  smallest  size  and  weight.     The  inhabitants 


ALBERT   GALLATIN.  7 

of  the  eastern  side  of  the  mountains  can  dispose  of  their 
grain  without  the  additional  labor  of  distillation  at  a 
higher  price  than  we  can  after  we  have  bestowed  that 
labor  upon  it.  Yet,  with  this  additional  labor,  we  must 
also  pay  a  high  duty,  from  which  they  are  exempted, 
because  we  have  no  means  of  selling  our  surplus  prod- 
uce but  in  a  distilled  state. 

Another  circumstance  which  renders  this  duty  ruin- 
ous to  us  is  our  scarcity  of  cash.  Our  commerce  is 
not,  as  on  the  eastern  coast,  carried  on  so  much  by  ab- 
solute sale  as  by  barter,  and  we  believe  it  to  be  a  fact 
that  there  is  not  among  us  a  quantity  of  circulating 
cash  sufficient  for  the  payment  of  this  duty  alone.  We 
are  not  accustomed  to  complain  without  reason,  * 
*        *        .—Ibid.,  p.  SS. 

In  a  letter  to   a  friend  written  in  1792,  he 

says  : 

*  *  *  .  We  have  a  plan  before  us,  which  I 
brought  forward,  to  establish  a  school  and  library  in 
each  county,  each  county  to  receive  £1,000  for  buildings 
and  beginning  a  library,  and  from  £75  to  £150  a  year, 
according  to  its  size,  to  pay  at  least  in  part  a  teacher 
of  the  English  language  and  one-  of  the  elements  of 
of  mathematics,  geography,  and  history,         *        * 

*  ,  it  is  meant  as  a  preparatory  step  to  township 
schools,         *        *        *        .—Ibid.,  p.  90. 

In  a  petition  drafted  by  Gallatin  to  the  leg- 
islature of  Pennsylvania,  from  the  western 
counties  of  Pennsylvania,  we  find  the  following 
language  : 

That  your  petitioners  have  been  greatly  alarmed  by 
a  law  of  Congress  which  imposes  a  duty  on  spirituous 
liquors  distilled  from  produce  of  the  United  States. 
To  us  that  act  appears  unequal  in  its  operation  and 
immoral  in  its  effects.  Unequal  in  its  operation,  as  a 
duty  laid  on  the  common  drink  of  a  nation,  instead  of 
taxing  the  citizens  in  proportion  to  their  property, 
falls  as  heavy  on  the  poorest  class  as  on  the  rich;  im- 
moral in  its  effect,  because  the  amount  of  the  duty, 
chiefly  resting  on  the  oath  of  the  payer,  offers,  at  the 
expense  of  the  honest  part  of  the  community,  a  pres- 


8  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

sure  to  perjury  and  fraud.  Your  petitioners  also  con- 
sider this  law  as  dangerous  to  liberty;  *  *  * 
—  Writings  Gallatin,  Vol.  L,  pp.  S-k. 

Extracts  from  a  letter  to  Miss  Nicholson  a  few 
months  before  their  marriage,  August  25,  1793: 

*  *  *  Well,  my  charming  patriot,  why  do  you 
write  to  me  about  politics?  *  *  *  I  believe  that, 
Except  a  very  few  intemperate,  unthinking,  or  wicked 
onen,  no  American  wishes  to  see  his  country  involved 
In  war.  As  to  myself,  I  think  every  war  except  a  de- 
fensive one  to  be  unjustifiable.  As  to  the  present  cause 
of  France,  although  I  think  they  have  been  guilty  of 
many  excesses,  *  *  *  and  that  in  their  present 
temper  they  are  not  likely  to  have  a  very  good  govern- 
ment wifehin  any  short  time,  yet  I  firmly  believe  their 
cause  to  be  that  of  mankind  against  tyrants,  and,  at 
all  events,  that  no  foreign  nation  has  a  right  to  dictate 
a  government  to  them.  So  far,  I  think,  we  are  inter- 
ested in  their  success,  and  as  to  our  political  situation 
they  are  certainly  the  only  real  allies  we  have  yet  had. 
*  *  *  Upon  the  whole,  I  think  that  unless  France 
or  England  attach  us  we  shall  have  no  war.  *  *  * 
Please  to  remember  that  my  politics  are  only  for  you. 
Except  in  my  public  character  I  do  not  like  to  speak  on 
the  subject,  although  I  believe  you  will  agree  with  me 
that  I  have  no  reason  to  be  ashamed  of  my  sentiments; 
but  moderation  is  not  fashionable  just  now. 

Again,  December  15,  1793,  just  after  their 
marriage,  he  writes : 

I  am  happy  to  see  that  you  are  a  tolerable  democrat, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  a  moderate  one.  I  trust  that 
our  parties  at  this  critical  juncture  will,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, forget  old  animosities,  and  show,  at  least  to  the 
foreign  powers  who  hate  us,  that  we  will  be  unanimous 
whenever  the  protection  and  defense  of  our  country 
require  it.  —Adams'  Life  of  Gallatin,  pp.  103-104,  112. 

The  following  anecdote  illustrates  very  well 
the  way  much  history  is  written,  as  well  as 
gives  us  a  good  insight  into  the  character  of 
Gallatin  for  straightforward  honesty.  Brack- 
enridge,  in  his  "Incidents  of  the  Whiskey  .Re- 
bellion," relates  the  incident  as  follows: 


Albert  gallatiN.  9 

Mr.  Gallatin  supported  the  necessity  of  the  resolu- 
tion with  a  view  to  the  establishment  of  the  laws,  and 
the  conservation  of  the  peace,  though  he  d  d  not  ven- 
ture to  touch  on  the  resistance  to  the  marshal,  or  the 
expulsion  of  the  proscribed,  yet  he  strongly  arraigned 
the  destruction  of  property;  the  burning  of  the  barn  of 
Kirkpatrick,  for  instance.  "  What?  ",  said  a  fiery  rellow 
in  the  committee,  "do  you  blame  that?"  The  secretary, 
[Gallatin]  found  himself  embarrased ;  he  paused  for  a 
moment.  "If  you  had  burned  him  in  it"  said  he  "it 
night  have  been  something;  but  the  barn  had  done  no 
harm."  "Ay,  Ay,"  said  the  man,  "that  is  right 
enough."  I  admired  the  presence  of  mind  of  Gallatin, 
and  give  the  incident  as  a  proof  of  the  delicacy  neces- 
sary to  manage  the  people  on  that  occasion. 

Mr.  Gallatin  has  written  on  the  margin  of 
the  volume  containing  this  account  these  words: 

Totally  false.  It  is  what  B.  would  have  said  in  my 
place.  The  fellow  said:  "  It  was  well  done."  I  replied 
instantly:  "No;  it  was  not  well  done,  "and  I  continued 
to  deprecate  in  the  most  forcible  terms  every  act  of 
violence.  For  I  had  quoted  the  burning  of  this  house 
as  one  of  the  worst.—  Adams  Life  of  Gallatin,  p.  133. 

April  22,  1795,  Gallatin  writes  to  his  wife 
rom  New  York,  in  part,  as  follows: 
The  more  I  see  of  this  state  the  better  I  like  Pennsyl- 
vania. It  may  be  prejudice,  or  habit,  or  whatever  you 
please,  but  there  are  soma  things  in  the  Western  coun- 
try which  contribute  to  my  happiness,  and  which  I  do 
not  find  here.  Among  other  things  which  displease  me 
here  I  may  mention,  in  the  first  place,  family  influence. 
In  Pennsylvania  *  *  *  from  the  suburbs 
of  Philadelphia  to  the  banks  of  the  Ohio,  I  do  not  know 
a  single  family  that  has  any  extensive  influence.  An 
equal  distribution  of  property  has  rendered  every  in- 
dividual independent,  and  there  is  amongst  us  true  and 
real  equality.  *  *  *  In  a  word  *  *  * 
as  I  am  poor,  I  like  a  countrv  where  no  person  is  very 
rich.        *        *        *.-Ibid.}I).  146-47. 

The  following  may  not  throw  much  light  on 
Gallatin,  but  it  gives  us  his  opinion  of  the  con- 


10  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

ditions  of    1795.     He  is   commenting  on  tho 
Whiskey  Rebellion  trials: 

*  *  *  Brackinridge  says  he  would  always 
choose  a  jury  of  Quakers,  or  at  least  Episcopalians,  in 
all  common  cases,  such  as  murder,  etc.,  but  in  every 
possible  case  of  insurrection,  rebellion,  and  treason, 
give  him  Presbyterians  on  the  jury  by  all  means.  I 
believe  there  is  at  least  as  much  truth  as  wit  in  the 
saying.        *        *        *.-Ibid,  p.  150. 

Mr.  Gallatin  has  made  an  estimate  of  his  own 
services  in  Congress  from  which  a  few  extracts 
may  be  made  that  will  throw  much  light  on  the 
man  and  his  works.     He  says: 

The  first  great  debate  in  which  we  were  engaged  was 
that  on  the  British  treaty;  and  my  speech,  or  rather 
two  speeches,  on  the  constitutional  powers  of  the 
House,  *  *  *  were,  whether  I  was  right  or 
wrong,  universally  considered  as  the  best  on  either 
side.  I  think  that  of  Mr.  Madison  superior  and  more 
comprehensive,  but  for  this  very  reason  ( comprehen- 
siveness )  less  impressive  than  mine.  Griswold's  reply 
was  thought  the  best;  in  my  opinion  it  was  that  of 
Goodrich,  *  *  *  ,  both,  however,  were  second- 
rate.  The  most  brilliant  and  eloquent  speech  was  un- 
doubtedly that  of  Mr.  Ames ;        *        *        *. 

It  is  certainly  a  subject  of  self-gratulation  that  I 
should  have  been  allowed  to  take  the  lead  [  in  Congress  ] 
with  such  co-adjutors  as  Madison,  Giles,  Livingston, 
and  Nicholas,  *  *  *  and  that  I  was  able  to 
contend  on  equal  terms  with  the  host  of  talents  col- 
lected in  the  Federal  party— Griswold,  Bayard, 
Harper,  Goodrich,  Otis,  Smith,  Sitgreans,  Dana,  and 
even  J.  Marshall.  Yet  I  was  destitute  of  eloquence, 
and  had  to  surmount  the  great  obstacle  of  speaking  in 
a  foreign  language,  with  a  very  bad  pronunciation. 
My  advantages  consisted  in  laborious  investigation, 
habits  of  analysis,  thorough  knowledge  of  the  subject 
under  discussion,  and  more  extensive  general  informa- 
tion, due  to  an  excellent  early  education,  to  which  I 
think  I  may  add  quickness  of  apprehension  and  a  sound 
judgment. 


ALBERT   GALLATIN.  11 

The  principal  questions  in  which  I  was  engaged  re 
lated  to  constitutional  construction  or  to  the  finances. 
*  *  *  The  Financial  department  in  the  House 
was  quite  vacant,  so  far,  at  least,  as  the  opposition  [  the 
Republicans]  was  concerned;  and  having  made  my- 
self complete  master  of  the  subject,  and  occupied  that 
field  almost  exclusively,  it  is  not  astonishing  that  my 
views  should  have  been  adopted  by  the  Republican 
party  and  been  acted  upon  when  they  came  into 
power.— Adams'  Life  of  Gallatin,  pp.  155-157. 

January  24,  1797,  Gallatin  writes  to  his  wife 
concerning  a  dinner  with  President  Washington 
in  the  following  words: 

He  [Washington]  looked,  I  thought,  more  than  usu- 
ally grave,  cool,  and  reserved.  Mrs.  W.  inquired  about 
you,  so  that  you  may  suppose  yourself  still  in  the  good 
graces  of  our  most  gracious  queen,  who,  by  the  by,  con- 
tinues to  be  a  very  good-natured  and  amiable  woman. 
Not  so  her  husband,  in  your  husband's  humble  opinion; 
but  that  between  you  and  me,  for  I  hate  treason,  and 
you  know  that  it  would  be  less  sacrilegious  to  carry 
arms  against  our  nation  than  to  refuse  singing  to  the 

tune  of  the  best  and  greatest  of  men        *        *        * 

Adams'  Life  of  Gallatin,  p.  182. 

A  few  days  later  he  writes  again  concerning 
the  political  conditions  of  the  times  in  this  rather 
gloomy  way: 

*  *  *  Your  husband  was  not  formed  for  the 
bustles  of  a  political  life  in  a  stormy  season.  Conscious 
of  the  purity  of  my  motives,  and  (shall  I  add  when  I 
write  to  my  bosom  friend)  conscious  of  my  own  strength, 
I  may  resist  the  tempest  with  becoming  firmness,  but 
happiness  dwells  not  there.  *  *  *  I  feel 
disgusted  at  the  mean  artifices  which  have  so  long  been 
successfully  employed  in  order  to  pervert  public  opin- 
ion, and  I  anticipate  with  gloomy  apprehension  the 
fatal  consequences  to  our  independence  as  a  nation  and 
to  our  internal  union  which  must  follow  the  folly  or 
wickedness  of  those  who  have  directed  our  public 
measures.  —Ibid.,  p.  182  3. 

Again  he  writes: 


12  AMERICAN    HISTORY   STUDIES. 

Yonr  papa  has  not  yet  answered  my  last  political 
letter.  I  am  afraid  he  thinks  me  too  moderate  and  be- 
lieves I  am  going  to  trim.  But  moderation  and  firm- 
ness have  ever  been  and  ever  will  be  my  motto. — Ibid., 

p.  m. 

February  23,  1798,  Gallatin  writes  to  his  wife 
concerning   the    Washington    birthday  ball  in 

this  way: 

-'  Do  you  want  to  know  the  fashion  able 
news  of  the  day?  The  President  of  the  United  States 
has  written  in  answer  to  the  managers  of  the  ball  in 
honor  of  G.  Washington's  birthday,  that  he  took  the 
earliest  opportunity  of  informing  them  that  he  declined 
going.  The  court  is  in  a  prodigious  uproar  about  that 
important  event.  The  ministers  and  their  wives  do  not 
know  how  to  act  upon  the  occasion;  the  friends  of  the 
old  court  say  it  is  dreadful,  a  monstrous  insult  to  the 
late  president;  *  *  *  A  most  powerful  bat- 
tery was  opened  against  me  to  induce  me  to  go  to  the 
said  ball;  it  would  be  remarked;  it  would  look  well; 
it  would  show  that  we  democrats,  and  I  specially,  felt 
no  reluctance  in  showing  my  respect  to  the  person  of 
Mr.  Washington,  but  that  our  objections  to  levees  and 
to  birthday  balls  applied  only  to  its  being  a  Presiden- 
tial, anti-republican  establishment,  and  that  we  were 
only  afraid  of  its  being  made  a  precedent;  and  then  it 
would  mortify  Mr.  Adams  and  please  Mr.  Washington. 
All  those  arguments  will  appear  very  weak  to  you  when 
on  paper,  but  they  were  urged  by  a  fine  lady,  by  Mrs. 
Law,  and  when  supported  by  her  handsome  black  eyes 
they  appeared  very  formidable.  *  *  *. — Ibid.t 
194. 

He  wrote  to  Maria  Nicholson  on  July  10, 
1798,  concerning  the  press,  in  terms  that  may 
well  be  considered  by  us: 

*  *  *  I  see  the  persecutions  of  the  printers 
are  going  on.  I  do  not  admire  much  the  manner  in 
which  the  new  editor  of  the  Time-Piece  conducts  his 
paper.  Cool  discussion  and  fair  statements  of  facts 
are  the  only  proper  modes  of  conveying  truth  and  dis- 
seminating sound  principles.     Let  squibs  and  virulent 


ALBERT   GALLATIN.  13 

paragraphs  be  the  exclusive  privilege  of  Fenno,  Porcu- 
pine &  Co.,  and  let  the  papers  which  really  are  in- 
tended to  support  republicanism  unite  candor  and 
moderation  to  unconquerable  firmness.  Pieces  may  be 
written  in  an  animated  style  without  offending  de- 
cency.       *        ":        *— Adams' Life  of  Gallatin,  p.  196. 

In  1700  he  again  gives  us  an  insight  into  his 
own  conception  of  himself.     He  writes  to  his 

wife: 

*  *  *  I  begin  to  think  that  one  of  the 
causes  of  my  opposition  to  a  great  extension  of  execu- 
tive power  is  that  constitutional  indolence  which,  not- 
withstanding some  share  of  activity  of  mind,  makes 
me  more  fit  to  think  than  to  act.  I  believe  I  am  well 
calculated  to  judge  and  to  determine  what  course 
ought  to  be  followed  either  in  private  or  public  busi- 
ness. But  I  must  have  executive  officers  who  will 
consult  me  and  act  for  me.         *  *— Adams' 

Life  of  Gallatin,  n.  226. 

In  1800,  in  commenting  on  the  sinking  fund 
plan  of  paying  national  debts,  Gallatin  showed 
that  he  at  that  time  recognized  its  fallacy,  al- 
though it  was  not  till  many  years  later  that  his 
view  was  admitted  lobe  correct,  nesajs  m 
part: 

*  *  *  I  know  but  one  way  that  a  nation  has 
of  paying  her  debts,  and  that  is  precisely  the  same 
which  individuals  practice.  Spend  less  than  you  re- 
ceive, and  you  may  then  apply  the  surplus  of  your  re- 
ceipts to  the  discharge  of  your  debts.  But  if  you 
spend  more  than  you  receive,  you  may  have  recourse 
to  sinking  funds,  you  may  modify  them  as  you  please. 
You  may  render  your  accounts  extremely  complex,  you 
may  give  a  scientific  appearance  to  additions  and  sub- 
tractions, you  must  still  necessarily  increase  your  debt. 
If  you  spend  more  than  you  receive,  the  difference 
must  be  supplied  by  loans;  and  if  out  of  these  receipts 
you  have  set  a  sum  apart  to  pay  your  debts, 
*  you  must  borrow  so  much  in  order  to  meet  your 
expenditures.  If  your  revenue  is  nine  millions  of  dol- 
lars, and  your  expenditures  fourteen,  you  must  borrow. 


14  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

you  must  create  a  new  debt  of  five  millions.  But  if 
two  millions  of  that  revenue  are,  under  the  name  of  a 
sinking  fund,  applicable  to  the  payment  of  the  prin- 
cipal of  an  old  debt,  and  pledged  for  it,  then  the  por- 
tion of  your  revenue  applicable  to  discharging  your 
current  expenditures  of  fourteen  millions  is  reduced  to 
seven  millions;  and  instead  of  borrowing  five  millions 
you  must  borrow  seven;  you  create  a  new  debt  of 
3even  millions,  and  you  pay  an  old  debt  of  two.  It  is 
still  the  same  increase  of  five  millions  of  debts  * 
*        *— Annals  of  Congress. 

Gallatin's  ideas  in  regard  to  the  work  of  the 
new  administration,  Jefferson's,  may  be  gath- 
ered from  a  letter  of  November  16,  1801.  He 
says: 

If  we  cannot  *  *  *  pay  the  debt  at  the 
rate  proposed  and  support  the  establishments  on  the 
proposed  plans,  one  of  three  things  must  be  done: 
either  to  continue  the  internal  taxes,  or  to  reduce  the 
expenditure  still  more,  or  to  discharge  the  debt  with 
less  rapidity.  The  last  recourse  is  to  me  the  most  ob- 
jectionable, not  only  because  I  am  firmly  of  the  opinion 
that  if  the  present  administration  and  Congress  do  not 
take  the  most  effective  measures  for  that  object,  the 
deb>b  will  be  entailed  on  us  and  the  ensuing  genera- 
tions, together  with  all  the  systems  which  support  it 
and  which  it  supports,         *        *        *. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  this  administration  shall  not 
reduce  taxes,  they  never  will  be  permanently  reduced. 
To  strike  at  the  root  of  the  evil,  and  avert  the  danger 
of  increasing  taxes,  encroaching  government,  temp- 
tations to  offensive  wars,  etc.,  nothing  can  be  more 
effectual  than  a  repeal  of  all  internal  taxes;  *  * 
*  *.  I  agree  most  fully  with  you  that  pretended 
tax-preparations,  treasurer-preparations,  and  army- 
preparations  against  contingent  wars  tend  only  to  en- 
courage wars.  If  the  United  States  shall  unavoidably 
be  drawn  into  war,  the  people  will  submit  to  any 
necessary  tax,  *  *  *. — Adams' Life  of  Gallatin, 
pp.  £70-71. 

In  regard  to  the  policy  he  would  have  pur- 
sued in  regard  to  appointment  to  and  removal 


ALBERT   GALLATIN.  15 

from  office,  the  following  extract  will  give  a 
general  idea: 

[There  is]  but  one  sentiment  I  wish  to  communicate; 
it  is  that  the  door  of  the  office  be  no  longer  shut 
against  any  man  merely  on  account  of  his  political 
opinion,  but  that  whether  he  shall  differ  or  not  from 
those  avowed  by  you  or  by  myself,  integrity  and  capac- 
ity suitable  to  the  station  be  the  only  qualifications 
that  shall  direct  our  choice. 

Permit  me,  since  I  have  touched  this  topic,  to  add 
that  whilst  freedom  of  opinion  and  freedom  of  suffrage 
at  public  elections  are  considered  by  the  president  as 
unprescriptible  rights  which,  possessing  as  citizens, 
you  cannot  have  lost  by  becoming  public  officers,  he 
will  regard  any  exercise  of  official  influence  to  restrain 
or  control  the  same  right  in  others  as  injurious  to  that 
part  of  the  public  administration  which  is  confided  to 
your  care,  and  practically  destructive  of  the  fundamen- 
tal principles  of  a  republican  constitution. — Ibid.,  pp. 
278-79. 

Gallatin  from  Washington  to  his  wife,  1802: 

*  *  *  Indeed,  dinners  of  a  political  cast 
cannot,  in  the  present  state  of  parties,  be  very  cheerful 
unless  confined  to  one  party.  *  *  *  I  had 
another  cause  which  damped  my  spirits.  We  were  in 
an  enclosure,  *  *  *  and  some  marines  were 
placed  as  sentries  to  prevent  intrusion;  *  *  • 
The  very  sight  of  a  bayonet  to  preserve  order  amongst 
citizens  rouses  my  indignation,  and  you  may  judge  of 
my  feelings  when  I  tell  you  that  one  of  the  sentries  ac- 
tually stabbed  a  mechanic  who  abused  him  because  he 
had  been  ordered  away.  The  bayonet  went  six  inches 
in  his  body  and  close  to  his  heart.  He  is  not  dead,  but 
still  in  great  danger,  and  the  marine  in  jail.  3  Such  are 
th*  effects  Of  what  is  called  discipline  in  times  of 
peace.  The  distribution  of  one  little  army  to  distant 
garrisons  where  hardly  any  other  inhabitant  is  to  be 
found  is  the  most  eligible  arrangement  of  that  perhaps 
necessary  evil  that  can  be  contrived.  But  I  never 
want  to  see  the  face  of  one  in  our  cities  and  intermixed 
with  the  people. 


16  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

Nothing  but  the  hope  of  seeing  you  soon  has  kept  in 
any  degree  my  spirits  from  sinking;  whether  in  the 
plains  or  over  the  hills,  whether  in  city  or  in  retreat,  I 
cannot  live  without  you.  It  is  trifling  with  that  share 
of  happiness  which  Providence  permits  us  to  enjoy  to 
be  forever  again  and  again  parted.  I  am  now  good  for 
nothing  but  for  you,  and  good  for  nothing  without  you. 
You  will  say  that  anyhow  I  am  not  good  for  much; 
that  may  be,  but  such  as  I  am,  you  are  mine,  and  you 
are  my  comfort,  my  joy,  and  the  darling  of  my  soul. 
Now  do  not  go  and  show  this  to  Maria  [Mrs.  Gallatin's 
sister]  ;  not  that  I  am  ashamed  of  it,  for  I  glory  in  my 
love  for  you;  but  she  will  think  my  expressing  myself 
that  way  very  foolish,  and  I  am  afraid  of  her.  — Life, 
pp.  304-5. 

A  letter  of  Gallatin's  to  Jefferson,  written  in 
1803,  will  indicate  his  ideas  in  regard  to  the 
powers  of  the  national  government: 

To  me  it  would  appear,  1st,  That  the  United  States 
as  a  nation  have  an  inherent  right  to  acquire  territory. 

2d.  That  whenever  that  acquisition  is  by  treaty,  the 
same  constituted  authorities  in  whom  the  treaty  mak- 
ing power  is  vested  have  a  constitutional  right  to 
sanction  the  acquisition. 

3d.  That  whenever  the  territory  has  been  acquired, 
Congress  have  the  power  either  of  admitting  into  the 
Union  as  a  state,  or  of  annexing  to  a  state  with  the 
consent  of  that  state,  or  of  making  regulations  for  the 
government  of  such  territory. — Adams'  Life  of  Galla- 
tin, p.  320. 

That  Gallatin  was  not  unaffected  by  the  at- 
tack on  the  "Chesapeake,"  and  the  course  of 
France  and  England  toward  the  United  States 
stands  forth  plainly  in  the  following  extracts: 

The  attack  of  the  British  on  the  Chesapeake  and  their 
subsequent  conduct  near  Norfolk  has  much  irritated 
every  one  here,  and  all  are  anxious  to  learn  what  the 
president  intends  to  do.  *  *  *  If  war  must 
be  we  ought  to  prosecute  it  with  the  same  zeal  that 
we  have  endeavored  to  preserve  peace,  and  by  great 
exertions  convince  the  enemy  that  it  is  not  from  fear 


ALBEKT   GALLATIN.  17 

or  cowardice  that  we  dread  it.  But  peace,  if  we  can 
have  it.  is  always  best  for  us,  and  if  the  Executive 
can  get  justice  done  and  preserve  it,  that  executive  will 
deserve  the  thanks  of  every  democrat  in  the  Union. — 

Life,  p.  360. 

July  17,  1807,  he  writes  to  his  brother-in-law, 
J.  H.  Nicholson,  concerning  the  same  subject: 

*  *  *  .  With  you  I  believe  that  war  is  in- 
evitable, and  there  can  be  but  one  opinion  on  the 
question  whether  the  claims  of  the  parties  prior  to  the 
attack  on  the  Chesapeake  should  be  a  subject  of  discus- 
sion.       *        *        * 

I  feel  no  apprehension  of  the  immediate  result.  We 
wTill  be  poorer,  both  as  a  nation  and  as  a  government; 
our  debt  and  taxes  will  increase,  and  our  progress  in 
every  respect  be  interrupted.  But  all  those  evils  are  not 
only  not  to  be  put  into  competition  with  the  indepen- 
dence and  honor  of  the  nation.  They  are,  moreover,  tem- 
porary, and  very  few  years  of  peace  will  obliterate  their 
effects.  Nor  do  I  know  whether  the  awakening  of 
nobler  feelings  and  habits  than  avarice  and  luxury  might 
not  be  necessary  to  prevent  our  degenerating,  like  the 
Hollanders,  into  a  nation  of  mere  calculators.  In  fact,  the 
greatest  mischiefs  which  I  apprehend  from  the  war  are 
the  necessary  increase  of  the  executive  powrer  and  influ" 
ence,  the  speculation  of  contractors  and  jobbers,  and  the 
introduction  of  permanent  military  and  naval  establish- 
ments *  *  *  . — Adams'  Life  of  Gallatin, 
pp.  361-62. 

The  spirit  of  the  English  Orders  in  Council 
which  finally,  together  with  the  Decrees  of 
Napoleon,  led  to  the  Embargo  policy  of 
Jefferson,  may  be  seen  in  this  letter  of  Spencer 
Perceval,  a  member  of  the  English  govern- 
ment    He  says: 

The  short  principle  is  that  trade  in  British  produce  and 
manufactures,  and  trade  either  from  a  British  port  or 
with  a  British  destination,  is  to  be  protected  as  much  as 
possible.  For  this  purpose  all  the  countries  where 
French  influence  prevails  to  exclude  the  British  flag 


18  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

shall  have  no  trade  but  to  or  from  this  country  or  from 
its  allies.  All  other  countries,  the  few  that  remain 
strictly  neutral  (  *  *  *  )  cannot  trade  but 
through  this  being  done  as  an  ally  with  any  of  the 
countries  connected  with  France.  If,  therefore,  we 
can  accomplish  our  purpose,  it  will  come  to  this,  that 
either  those  countries  will  have  no  trade,  or  they  must 
be  content  to  accept  it  through  us,         *        *        *. 

Jefferson  was  in  favor  of  having  no  trade, 
rather  than  accept  it  on  such  conditions,  hence 
he  recommended  the  Embargo.  How  Gallatin 
thought  on  the  subject  we  may  see  from  the 
following  extracts: 

In  every  point  of  view,  privations,  sufferings, 
revenue,  effect  on  the  enemy,  politics  at  home,  etc.,  I 
prefer  war  to  a  permanent  embargo.  Governmental 
prohibitions  do  always  more  mischief  than  had  been 
calculated;  and  it  is  not  without  much  hesitation  that 
a  statesman  should  hazard  to  regulate  the  concerns  of 
individuals  as  if  he  could  do  it  better  than  themselves. 
—Ibid,,  p.  366. 

A  few  months  later,  July  29,  1808,  after  the 
Embargo  policy  had  been  in  force  for  some 
time,  Gallatin  again  wrote  in  these  terms: 

I  am  perfectly  satisfied  that  if  the  embargo  must  be 
persisted  in  any  longer,  two  principles  must  necessarily 
be  adopted  in  order  to  make  it  sufficient;  1st,  That 
not  a  single  ^«ssel  shall  be  permitted  to  move  without 
the  special  permission  of  the  Executive;  2d,  That  the 
collectors  be  invested  with  the  general  power  of  seizing 
property  anywhere  *  *  *.  I  am  sensible 
that  such  arbitrary  powers  are  equally  dangerous  and 
odious,         *        *        *. 

That  in  the  present  situation  of  the  world  every 
effort  should  be  attempted  to  preserve  the  peace  of 
this  nation  cannot  be  doubted.  But  if  the  criminal 
party  rage  of  Federalists  and  Tories  shall  have  so  far 
succeeded  as  to  defeat  our  endeavors  to  attain  that 
object  by  the  only  measure  [  Embargo  J  that  could  pos- 
sibly have  affected  it,  we  must  submit  and  prepare  for 
war.       *       *       *.—JUd,  pp.  370-71. 


ALBERT   GALLATIN.  19 

A  letter  of  November  8,  1809,  to  Jefferson, 
gives  us  an  insight  into  the  aims  of  Gallatin  as 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury.     In  part  he  says  : 

*  *  *  rpke  reduction  of  the  public  debt  was 
certainly  the  principal  object  in  bringing  me  into  office, 
and  our  success  in  that  respect  has  been  due  both  to 
the  joint  and  continuous  efforts  of  the  several  branches 
of  government  and  to  the  prosperous  situation  of  the 
country.        *        *        * — Adams'  Life,  p.  409. 

Gallatin  writes  to  Jefferson,  March  10,  1812, 
in  regard  to  the  war  conditions,  in  a  few  brief 
sentences  as  follows: 

*  *  *  You  have  seen  from  your  retreat  that 
our  hopes  and  endeavors  to  preserve  peace  during  the 
present  European  contest  have  at  last  been  frustrated. 
I  am  satisfied  that  domestic  faction  has  prevented 
that  happy  result.  But  I  hope,  nevertheless,  that  our 
internal  enemies  and  the  ambitious  intriguers  who 
still  attempt  to  disunite  will  ultimately  be  equally  dis- 
appointed. I  rely  with  great  confidence  on  the  good 
sense  of  the  mass  of  the  people  to  support  their  own 
government  in  an  unavoidable  war,  and  to  check  the 
disordinate  ambition  of  individuals.  *  *  * 
With  respect  to  the  war,  it  is  my  wish  *  *  * 
that  the  evils  *  *  *  be  limited  to  its  dura- 
tion, and  that  at  its  end  the  United  States  may  be 
burthened  with  the  smallest  possible  quantity  of  debt, 
perpetual  taxation,  military  establishments,  and  other 
corrupting  or  anti-republican  habits  or  institution. 
— Adams'  Life,  pp.  455-456. 

May  5,  1813,  he  writes  to  J.  W.  Nicholson 
concerning  the  war  and  the  need  of  peace.  He 
says: 

*  *  *  Peace,  at  all  times  desirable,  is  much 
more  so  for  two  reasons:  1,  The  great  incapacity  for 
conducting  the  wax  *  *  *  2,  The  want  of 
union,  or,  rather,  open  hostility  to  the  war  and  to  the 
Union,  which,  however  disgraceful  to  the  parties  con- 
cerned, and  to  the  national  character,  is  not  less  formid- 
able.       *        *        *        Finally,  provided  we  can  ob- 


20  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

tain  security  with  respect  to  impressments,  peace  will 
give  ns  everything  we  want.  Taught  by  experience 
we  will  apply  a  part  of  our  resources  to  such  naval 
preparations  and  organization  of  the  public  forces  as 
will  within  less  than  five  years  place  us  in  a  command- 
ing situation.  *  *  *  To  keep  down  the 
Tory  faction  at  home  and  ultimately  to  secure  in  an 
effectual  manner  our  national  rights  against  England, 
peace  is  equally  necessary.  *  *  *  —Ibid, 
pp.  4S2-S3. 

June  20,  Gallatin  had  an  interview  with  the 
Emperor  Alexander  in  London.  Of  it  he 
writes: 

His  friendly  dispositions  toward  the  United  States 
are  unimpaired.  He  earnestly  wishes  that  peace  may  be 
made  between  them  and  England;  but  he  does  not  give 
or  seem  to  entertain  any  hope  that  he  can  on  that  sub- 
ject be  of  any  service.  *  *  *  England  will 
not  admit  a  third  party  to  interfere  in  her  disputes  with 
you        *        *        *.— Ibid.,  5U. 

June  13,  he  wrote  of  the  conditions: 
Whatever  may  be  the  object  and  duration  of  the  war, 
America  must  rely  on  her  resources  alone.  From  Eu- 
rope no  assistance  can  for  some  time  be  expected.  * 
*  *  Above  all,  there  is  nowhere  any  navy  in  ex- 
istence, and  years  of  peace  must  elapse  before  the 
means  of  resisting  with  effect  the  sea-power  of  Great 
Britain  can  be  created,  *  *  *  and  the  most 
favorable  times  of  peace  that  can  be  expected  are  the 
status  ante-bellum,  and  a  postponement  of  the  ques- 
tions of  blockades,  impressments,  and  all  other  points 
which  in  time  of  European  peace  are  not  particularly 
injurious;        *        *        *.  — Writings  I,  p.  628. 

His  view  of  the  effects  of  the  war  may  be 
gathered  from  a  letter  to  Matthew  Lyon,  of 
May  7,  1816  : 

*  *  *  The  war  has  been  productive  of  evil 
and  good,  but  I  think  the  good  preponderates.  Inde- 
pendent of  the  loss  of  lives  and  of  the  losses  in  prop- 
erty by  individuals,  the  war  has  laid  the  foundation  of 


ALBERT    GALLATIN.  21 

permanent  taxes  and  military  establishments  which 
the  Republicans  had  deemed  unfavorable  to  the  happi- 
ness and  free  institutions  of  the  country..  But  under 
our  former  system  we  were  becoming  too  selfish,  too 
much  attached  exclusively  to  the  acquisition  of  wealth, 
above  all,  too  much  confined  in  our  political  feelings 
to  local  and  state  objects.  The  war  has  renewed  and 
reinstated  the  national  feelings  and  character  which 
the  Revolution  had  given,  and  which  were  daily  less- 
ened. The  people  have  now  more  general  objects  of 
attachment  with  which  their  pride  and  political  opin- 
ions are  connected.  They  are  more  Araeri  m;  they 
feel  and  act  more  as  a  nation,  and  I  hope  that  the  per- 
manency of  the  Union  is  thereby  better  secured.  * 
*        *—  Writings,  I.,  p.  700. 

He  writes  from  Paris,  July  17,  1817,  in  a 
tone  that  shows  the  change  in  Europe  concern- 
in  g  America: 

*  *  *  The  growing  prosperity  of  the  United 
States  is  an  object  of  admiration  for  all  the  friends  of 
liberty  in  Europe,  a  reproach  on  almost  all  the  Euro- 
pean governments.  At  no  period  has  America  stood  on 
higher  ground  abroad  than  now.         *        * 

I  thirst  for  America,  and  I  hope  that  the  time  is  not 
distant  when  I  may  again  see  her  shores  and  enjoy 
the.  blessings  which  are  found  only  there.  *  *  * 
[He  remained  as  minister  in  France,  however,  till  1823  ] 
— Adams'  Life  of  Gallatin,  p.  565. 

Gallatin  to  «his  wife,  from  Washington,  Jan- 
uary 24,  1824: 

*  *  •  *  Mr.  Crawford  is  mending  slowly.  His 
friends  are  not  perfectly  easy  about  his  final  recovery, 
and  Early  adduced  this  to  me  as  a  reason  why  I  should 
be  made  Vice  President.  My  answer  was  that  I  did 
not  want  the  office,  and  would  dislike  to  be  proposed 
and  not  elected.—  Adams'  Life  of  Gallatin,  p.  694. 

After  the  election  of  1824  Gallatin's  name 
was  suggested  for  a  cabinet  position.  In  that 
connection,  he  writes: 

As  to  my  accepting  the  Treasury  Department,  it  is 
out  of  the  question  [too  much  labor]       *        *        *. 


22  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

But  even  with  respect  to  the  Department  of  State,  for 
which  I  am  better  calculated  than  any  other,  and  as  fit 
as  any  other  person,  it  appears  to  me, 
it  would  not  be  proper  for  me  to  become  a  member  of 
it  [the  cabinet].*  This  is  much  strengthened  by  the 
surmises  to  which  Mr.  Clay's  conduct  has  given  birth, 
and  by  the  circumstance  of  his  accepting  one  dt  the 
Departments.  I  must,  and  will  at  all  events,  remain 
above  the  reach  of  suspicion.  — i  bid. ,  p.  608. 

About  1830  Gallatin  entered  politics  again  in 
so  far  as  taking  part  in  public  discussions  may 
be  called  entering  politics.  He  wrote  in  favor 
of  the  bank,  and  against  protection.  In  regard 
to  his  mental  habits,  he  says: 

I  can  lay  no  claim  to  either  originality  of  thinking  or 
felicity  of  expression.  If  I  have  met  with  any  success 
either  in  public  bodies,  as  an  executive  officer,  or  in 
foreign  negotiations,  it  has  been  exclusively  through  a 
patient  and  most  thorough  investigation  of  all  the  at- 
tainable facts,  and  a  cautious  application  of  these  to 
the  questions  under  discussion;  *  *  *.—  Adams' 
Life  of  Gallatin,  p.  637. 

Henry  Adams  has  given  this  summary  of  the 

life  of  Gallatin  : 

Under  these  pleasant  conditions,  Mr.  Gallatin's  active 
mind  turned  to  those  scientific  pursuits  for  which  it 
was  so  well  fitted  and  in  which  it  took  so  much  delight. 
Perhaps  one  might  not  wander  far  from  the  truth  if  one 
added  that  these  pursuits  were,  on  the  whole,  his  most 
permanent  claim  to  distinction.  The  first  debater  and 
parliamentarian  of  his  day,  his  fame  as  a  leader  of  Con- 
gress has  long  since  ceased  to  give  an  echo,  and  his 
most  brilliant  speeches  are  hardly  known  even  by  name 
to  the  orators  of  the  present  generation.  The  first 
of  all  American  financiers,  his  theories,  his  methods, 
and  his  achievements  as  secretary  of  the  treasury  are 
as  completely  forgotten  by  politicians  as  his  speeches 
in  Congress.  First  among  the  diplomatists  of  his  time, 
his  reputation  as  a  diplomat  has  passed  out  of  men's 
minds.  First  as  a  writer  and  an  authority  on  political 
economy  in  America,  very  few  economists  can  now  re- 


Albert  gallatin.  23 

member  the  titles  of  his  writings  or  the  consequences 
of  his  action.  But  he  was  the  father  of  American 
ethnology,  and  there  has  been  no  time  since  his  death 
when  the  little  band  of  his  followers  have  forgotten 
him.        *        *        *  Thus  it  was  he  who  first  es- 

tablished the  linguistic  groups  of  the  North  American 
Indians  on  a  large  scale,  and  made  the  first  ethnograph- 
ical map  of  North  America  which  had  real  merit.  * 
*        *        .—Adams'  Life  of  Gallatin,  pp.  643-U- 

In  1833  he  writes  a  long  letter  to  his  friend, 
John  Badollet,  in  which  occurs  this  sentence: 

The  present  aspect  of  our  national  politics  is  extremely 
discouraging;  yet,  having  hitherto  always  seen  the  good 
sense  of  this  nation  ultimately  prevail  against  the  ex- 
cesses of  party  spirit,  and  the  still  more  dangerous  ef- 
forts of  disappointed  ambition,  I  do  not  despair.—  I o id., 
p.  648. 

To  Badollet  he  again  writes  in  1836: 

The  energy  of  this  nation  is  not  to  be  controlled;  it 
is  at  present  exclusively  applied  to  the  acquisition  of 
wealth  and  to  improvements  of  stupendous  magnitude, 
*  *  *  The  apparent  prosperity  and  the  progress 
of  cultivation,  population,  commerce,  and  improve- 
ment are  beyond  expectation.  But  it  seems  to  me  as  if 
general  demoralization  was  the  consequence;  and  I 
would  have  preferred  a  gradual,  slow,  and  more 
secure  progress.  I  am,  however,  an  old  man,  and  the 
young  generation  has  a  right  to  govern  itself 
*.—Ibid,  p.  653. 

Miss  Martineau  has  left  us  an  account  of  an 
interview  of  1834  with  Gallatin  that  is  worthy 
to  be  quoted  entire.  However,  space  forbids, 
and  only  some  extracts  may  be  taken. 

Mr.  Gallatin  called.  Old  man.  Began  his  career  in 
1787.  Has  been  three  times  in  England.  Twice  as 
minister.  Found  George  IV.  a  cipher  *  * 
William  IV.  silly  as  duke  of  Clarence.  Gallatin  would 
have  the  president  a  cipher,  too,  if  he  could,  i.  e. ,  would 
have  him  annual,  so  that  all  would  be  done  by  the  min- 
teters.        *        *       *.     The  office  was  made  for  the 


24  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

man — Washington— who  was  wanted  (as  well  as  fit)  to 
reconcile  all  parties.  Bad  office,  but  well  filled  till 
now.  Too  much  power  for  one  man:  therefore  it  fills 
all  men's  thoughts  to  the  detriment  of  better  things. 
Jackson  "  a  pugnacious  animal. "        *        *        *. 

New  Englanders  the  best  people,  perhaps,  in  the 
world.  Prejudiced,  but  able,  honest,  and  homogeneous, 
compound  elsewhere.         *        *        *. 

All  great  changes  have  been  effected  by  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  from  the  first  up  to  the  universal  suffrage, 
which  practically  exists. 

Would  have  no  United  States  Bank.  Would  have 
free  banking  as  soon  as  practicable.  It  cannot  be  yet. 
Thinks  Jackson  all  wrong  about  the  bank,  but  has 
changed  his  opinions  as  to  its  powers.  It  has  no  po- 
litical powers,  but  prodigious  commercial.  If  the  bank 
be  not  necessary,  better  avoid  allowing  this  power. 
Bank  has  not  overpapered  this  country. 

Gallatin  is  tall,  bald,  toothless,  speaks  with  burr, 
looks  venerable  and  courteous.  Opened  out  airl  apolo- 
gized for  his  full  communication.  Kissed  my  hand. — 
Adams'  Life  of  Gallatin,  pp.  650-51. 

He  opposed  the  annexation  of  Texas,  the  war 
with  Mexico,  and  the  extension  of  slavery. 
From  1844  to  1848  he  worked  with  the  greatest 
energy  in  these  directions.  Born  in  1761,  he 
died  in  1849,  but  as  late  as  1848  he  writes  con- 
cerning his  work  to  secure  peace  with  Mexico  : 

I  write  with  great  difficulty,  and  I  become  exhausted 
when  I  work  more  than  four  or  five  hours  per  day. 
Ever  since  the  end  of  October  all  my  faculties,  im- 
paired as  they  are,  were  absorbed  in  one  subject;  not 
only  my  faculties,  but  I  may  say  all  my  feelings;  I 
thought  of  nothing  else;  *  *  *"  I  postx>oned 
everything  else,  *  *  *  even  answering  the 
letters  which  did  not  absolutely  require  immediate  at- 
tention.— Writings  I.,  p.  569. 

QUESTIONS. 

(1)  What  was  Gallatin's  native  country?  (2)  From 
what  class  did  he  come?    (8)  Was  he  aristocratic  or 


ALBERT    GALLATIN. 


25 


democratic  himself?  (4)  What  can  be  said  of  Galla- 
tin's education?  (5)  What  of  his  interest  in  education? 
(6)  In  what  states  do  yon  find  Gallatin  lived  ?  (7)  What 
did  Gallatin  spend  money  for,  for  his  marriage*  (8) 
From  the  letter  given  what  do  you  think  of  his  first 
wife?  (9)  What  the  nature  of  his  home  life  after  his 
second  marriage? 

(1)  Name  the  public  positions  that  Gallatin  held.  (2) 
Make  a  list  of  his  political  views.  ( 3)  What  can  you  say 
of  the  success  of  his  statesmanship?  (4)  What  argu- 
ments were  set  forth  by  the  people  of  western  Pennsyl- 
vania against  the  excise  tax?  (5)  How  did  Gallatin  re- 
gard the  French  Revolution?  (6)  What  was  the  error 
in  Mr.  Breckenridge's  account  of  the  "  Whiskey  Insur- 
rection"? (7)  Why  did  Gallatin  like  Pennsylvania 
better  than  New  York?  (8)  Do  you  agree  with  him  in 
principle?  (9)  Why  did  Breckenridge  wish  to  choose 
juries  in  the  way  he  suggests? 

(1)  What  was  Gallatin's  place  in  national  politics? 
(2)  Why  was  he  so  strong  a  leader?  (3)  Have  our  most 
successful  statesmen  had  the  same  quality  in  general? 
(4)  What  did  Gallatin  think  of  the  forms  and  cere- 
monies of  Washington  life?  (5)  How  does  he  criticise 
President  Washington?  (6)  How  did  Gallatin  propose 
to  pav  the  national  debt  ?  <  7)  Find  out  what  you  can  of 
the  ''Sinking  fund"  theory.  (8)  What  were  Gallatin's 
essential  ideas  in  managing  the  Treasury  Department? 
(9)  Was  he  a  "spoilsman "?  (10)  What  would  Gallatin 
say,  if  living  now,  in  regard  to  the  right  to  annex  Cuba, 
etc.? 

(1)  What  did  Gallatin  think  of  war?  (2)  How  did  he 
regard  the  war  of  1812?  (3)  Discuss  his  views  regard- 
ing an  embargo.  (4)  Find  out  what  you  can  of  an  em- 
bargo policy.  1 5)  Was  the  war  of  1812  well  managed? 
(6)  What  did  he  think  of  the  Federalists?  (7)  What 
name  did  he  give  them?  (8)  Did  he  like  America  or 
Europe  best?  Why?  (9)  Did  he  care  for  office?  (10) 
For  what  work  in  politics  did  he  believe  himself  best 
fitted?  (11)  What  qualities  made  him  so  successful? 
(12)  What  American  characteristic  did  he  *hink  the 
most  dominant?  (13)  What  do  you  learn  from  Miss 
Martmeau's  interview  of  Gallatin's  views? 

(1)  Name  Gallatin's  dominant  characteristics  as  you 

3 


26  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

gather  them  from  these  extracts.  (2)  Write  a  life  of 
Gallatin  from  this  material.  (3)  Do  you  admire  him  or 
not?    Why  your  answer? 


JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS 


Born  at  Braintree,  Mass.,  1767.  American  Am- 
bassador in  Holland,  1797-1801.  Senator,  1803- 
1808.  Peace  commissioner,  1813-1815.  Minister 
to  England,  1815-1817.  Secretary  of  state,  1817- 
1825.  President,  1825-1829.  Candidate  for  re- 
election, 1828— defeated.  Member  of  House  of 
Representatives,  1832-1848.    Died,  1848. 


CHAPTER  II 
JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS 

ONE  of  the  few  really  learned  legislators 
in  American  history  is  presented  in  this 
study.  Every  opportunity  almost  that 
could  in  any  way  tend  to  prepare  him  for  this 
work  was  his.  As  a  boy  with  his  father  he 
became  familiar  with  Europe  and  its  states- 
men. His  youthful  years  were  passed  in  the 
midst  of  diplomats,  and  at  an  extremely  early 
age  he  became  one  of  the  foreign  ministers  of 
his  country.  At  home  he  was  senator,  secre- 
tary of  state,  president,  and  congressman. 

But  during  all  the  years  of  his  public  life  he 
was  ever  the  hard  and  persistent  student.  Sys- 
tem in  everything  characterizes  his  methods. 
The  result  was  that  before  his  death  he  had  ac- 
cumulated a  mass  of  information  that  was  al- 
most phenomenal.  His  knowledge  of  history, 
especially  of  his  own  country,  was  deep  and 
minute.  Adams  had  some  faults  of  disposition 
that  detracted  from  his  lovableness,  but  when  all 
has  been  said,  he  yet  remains  one  of  the  great 
characters  in  our  country's  history. 

Mr.  F.  G.  Franklin,  instructor  in  American 
history  in  the  University,  has  prepared  the  ex- 
tracts for  this  number.  They  tell  much  of  the 
life,  and  indicate  clearly  the  thought,  of  Adams 


JOHN   QUINCY   ADAMS.        .  29 

on  most  of  the  great  questions  of  his  clay.  The 
necessity  of  cutting  out  many  chosen  passages, 
in  order  to  reduce  the  article  to  its  space  limits, 
will  explain  some  gaps  in  this  number  as  well 
as  in  the  preceding,  and  I  doubt  not  in  many  of 
the  succeeding  numbers. 

Farts  of  letters  to  his  father  and  to  his 
mother  show  us  the  boy  first  at  his  home,  and 
then  at  a  school  in  France: 

Braintree,  June  the  2nd,  1777. 

Dear  Sir, — I  love  to  receive  letters  very  well;  much 
better  than  I  love  to  write  them.  I  make  but  a  poor 
figure  at  composition,  my  head  is  much  too  fickle,  my 
thoughts  are  running  after  birds  eggs  play  and  trifles, 
till  I  get  vexed  with  myself.  Mamma  has  a  trouble- 
some task  to  keep  me  steady,  and  I  own  I  am  ashamed 
of  myself.  *  *  *  I  wish,  Sir,  you  would 
give  me  some  instructions,  with  regard  to  my  time,  & 
advise  me  how  to  proportion  my  Studies  &  my  Play,  in 
writing,  &  I  will  keep  them  by  me,  &  endeavor  to 

follow  them. 

Passy,  September  the  27th,  1778. 

Honoured  Mamma,— My  Pappa  enjoins  it  upon  me 
to  keep  a  journal,  or  a  diary  of  the  Events  that  happen 
to  me,  and  of  objects  that  I  see,  and  of  Characters  that 
I  converse  with  from  day  to  day;  and  altho.  I  am 
convinced  of  the  utility,  importance  &  necessity  of  this 
Exercise,  yet  I  have  not  patience  and  perseverance 
enough  to  do  it  so  Constantly  as  I  ought.  My  Pappa, 
who  takes  a  great  deal  of  Pains  to  put  me  in  the  right 
way,  has  also  advised  me  to  Preserve  copies  of  all  my 
letters,  &  has  given  me  a  Convenient  Blank  Book  for 
this  end;  and  altho  I  shall  have  the  mortification  a  few 
years  hence  to  read  a  great  deal  of  my  Childish  non- 
sense, yet  I  shall  have  the  Pleasure  and  advantage  of 
Remarking  the  several  steps  by  which  I  shall  have  ad- 
vanced in  taste  judgment  and  knowledge.  A  journal 
Book  &  a  letter  Book  of  a  Lad  of  Eleven  years  old  Can 
not  be  expected  to  contain  much  of  Science,  Littera- 
ture,  arts,  wisdom,  or  wit,  yet  it  may  serve  to  perpetu- 
ate  many   observations   that   I  may  make,   &  may 


30  AMERICAN   HISTORY  STUDIES. 

hereafter  help  me  to  recollect  both  persons  &  things 
Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  I,  7-9. 

Washington  wrote  of  him  in  1797: 

I  give  it  as  my  decided  opinion  that 
Mr.  Adams  is  the  most  valuable  public  character  we 
have  aboard,  and  there  remains  no  doubt  in  my  mind 
that  he  will  prove  himself  to  be  the  ablest  of  our  diplo- 
matic corps.—  Ibid.,  19  J*. 

The  following  account  of  his  life  in  Holland 
(July,  1796)  shows  how  he  became  so  valuable: 

The  reading  of  the  month  has  carried  me  through 
Luzac's  Richesse  de  la  Hollande,  and  the  Traite  General 
de  Commerce;  .  .  .  the  Life  of  Dumouriez,  Garat's 
Memoirs,  and  Pratt's  Gleanings.  Of  all  these  books  I 
have  made  mention,  and  some  slight  observations  at 
the  time  of  finishing,  and  also  of  Pitt's  translation  of 
the  Aeneid,  Howe's  Lucan,  which  I  have  gone  through, 
and  Garth's  compilation  of  the  Metamorphoses,  which 
I  have  no't  yet  finished.  To  improve  in  the  Dutch  Lan- 
guage I  have  usually  translated  a  page  every  day;  and 
after  going  thus  through  the  Constitution  of  the  Na- 
tional Assembly,  which  is  now  in  session,  I  took  the 
Introduction  to  Rendorp's  Memoirs.  I  shall  give  the 
preference  to  all  interesting  state  papers;  because  I  send 
the  translations  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  thus 
answer  two  good  purposes  at  once.  My  progress  in 
Italian  is  slow,  and  I  can  only  translate  two  or  three 
stanzas  of  Tasso  at  a  time.  The  language  itself  is  en- 
chanting, but,  with  no  opportunity  to  speak  or  hear  it 
spoken,  my  advances  are  very  small,  and,  with  my 
other  occupations,  I  may  perhaps  grow  tired  of  that. 
To  keep  alive  my  Latin,  I  have  begun  to  translate  a 
page  of  Tacitus  every  day,  and  am  going  through  the 
life  of  Agricola,  which  in  the  year  1784,  at  this  place,  I 
translated  into  French.  ...  My  other  writ- 
ing is  principally  confined  to  writing  and  answering 
letters,  or  to  the  journal. — Ibid.,  176-7. 

While  in  London  he  wrote  in  his  diary  for 
July  26,  1797: 
At  nine  this  morning  ,     I  was  married  to 


JOHN    QUINCY    ADAMS.  31 

Louisa  Catharine  Johnson,  the  second  daughter  of 
Joshua  and  Catharine  Johnson,  by  Mr.  Hewlett.—  I  bid., 
199. 

Both  lived  to  celebrate  in  Quincy,  Mass.,  the 
semi-centennial  of  this  event. 

The  political  revolution  of  1800,  bringing  into 
power  Jefferson  and  the  Republican  party,  in- 
terrupted John  Quincy  Adams's  diplomatic  ca- 
reer abroad.     January  28,  1802,  he  wrote: 

I  feel  strong  temptation  and  have  great  provocation 
to  plunge  into  political  controversy.  But  I  hope  to  pre- 
serve myself  from  it  by  the  considerations  which  have 
led  me  to  the  resolution  of  renouncing.  A  politician  in 
this  country  must  be  the  man  of  a  party.  I  would  fain 
be  the  man  of  my  whole  country."— Ibid.,  249. 

In  the  cl  ary,  October  21, 1803,  he  wrote: 

At  eleven  this  morning  I  took  my  seat  in  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States. 

The  following  extracts  from  his  diary  reveal 
the  character  and  views  of  Mr.  Adams  at  this 
period : 

I  have  already  seen  enough  to  ascertain  that  no 
amendments  of  my  proposing  will  obtain  in  the  Senate 
as  now  filled.— Ibid.,  270. 

Unanimous  consent  was  necessary  [for  declaring  war 
with  Morocco]  and  I  alone  objected.  My  principle  was, 
that  a  declaration  of  war  was  the  last  thing  in  the 
world  to  make  with  unusual  precipitation.—  Ibid.,  273. 

The  country  is  so  totally  given  up  to  the  spirit  of 
party,  that  not  to  follow  blindfold  the  one  or  the  other 
is  an  inexpiable  offence.— Ibid.,  282. 

The  cooperation  of  the  Senate  in  all  appointments  is 
at  present  a  mere  formality,  and  a  very  disgusting 
formality.  —1  b id. ,  320. 

In  public  affairs,  it  appears  to  me,  there  is  no  quality 
more  useful  and  important  than  good  humor,  because 
it  operates  continually  to  soften  the  asperities  that  are 
continually  rising  in  the  collisions  of  adverse  interests 
and  opinions,        .        .        .—Ibid.,  377. 


32  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

My  political  prospects  continue  declining.  [January 
1,  1806.] -Ibid.,  380. 

Feeble  and  insignificant  as  my  influence  upon  the 
counsels  of  the  nation  is,  I  feel  a  load  of  responsibility 
weighing  upon  me  to  the  utmost  I  can  bear.  Ronest 
intention  and  sincerity  must  be  my  only  substitute  for 
more  efficacious  powers.  —  1  bid.,  895. 

Constitutional  difficulties  never  will  stand  in  the 
way  of  a  majority  .  .  .  even  in  so  select  a 
body  as  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  a  mere  varia- 
tion of  phrase  will  contrive  a  loophole  to  creep  from 
the  most  barefaced  usurpation  of  power.— Ibid,  417. 

In  the  afternoon  I  was  installed  as  Boylston  Prof  esse .... 
of  Rhetoric  and  Oratory  [at  Harvard,  June  12,  1806].— 
Ibid.,  Ul- 

My  defects  of  elocution  are  incurable,  and  amidst  so 
many  better  speakers,  when  the  debates  are  to  be  re 
ported,  I  never  speak  without  mortification.  The  process 
of  reasoning  in  my  mind  is  too  slow  for  uninterrupted 
articulation.  My  thoughts  arise  at  first  confused,  and 
require  lime  to  shape  into  a  succession  of  sentences. 
Hence  the  transition  from  thought  to  thought  is  awk- 
ward and  inelegant,  and  expression  often  fails  me  to  ac- 
complish a  sentence  commenced;  so  that  I  often  begin 
a  thought  with  spirit  and  finish  it  with  nonsense. 
The  chain  of  my  argument  often  escapes  me,  and  when 
lost  can  seldom  be  retrieved.  I  then  finish  as  I  can, 
without  producing  half  the  arguments  I  proposed  be- 
fore I  began  to  speak.  These  faults  would  be  so  over- 
powering that  I  should  sink  into  perpetual  silence, 
from  mere  impotence,  were  it  not  that  sometimes  in  the 
ardor  of  debate,  when  my  feelings  are  wound  up  to  a 
high  tone,  elocution  pours  itself  along  with  unusual 
rapidity,  and  I  have  passages  which  would  not  shame 
a  good  speaker:  this  is  the  only  thing  that  makes  me 
tolerable  to  others  or  to  myself.—  I  hid,,  445. 

[December  81,  1807.]  My  general  consideration 
among  my  fellow-citizens,  though  not  marked  by  any 
new  public  testimonial  in  the  course  of  the  year,  has 
been  to  my  observation  apparently  rising.  During  the 
present  session  of  the  Senate  my  standing  in  that  body 
lias  been  singular— apparently  so  distinguished  as  to 


JOHN    QUINCY    ADAM3. 


33 


have  excited  jealousies,  with  little  more  real  influence 
than  heretofore.  .  .  .  On  most  of  the  great 
national  questions  now  under  discussion,  my  sense  of 
duty  leads  me  to  support  the  administration,  and  I  find 
myself  of  course  in  opposition  to  the  federalists  in  gen 
eral. — Ibid.,  497. 

I  fully  opened  to  him  [Quincy]  my  motives  for  sup- 
porting the  administration  at  this  crisis  [danger  of 
war  with  England] ,  and  my  sense  of  the  danger  which 
a  spirit  of  opposition  is  bringing  upon  the  Union.  I 
told  him  where  that  opposition  in  case  of  war  must  in 
its  nature  end— either  in  a  civil  war,  or  in  a  dissolution 
of  the  Union,  with  the  Atlantic  States  in  subserviency 
to  Great  Britain.  That  to  resist  this  I  was  ready,  if 
necessary,  to  sacrifice  everything  I  have  in  life,  and 
even  life  itself.—  Ibid. .  510. 

The  following  entry  (June  8,  1808)  will 
mark  the  close  of  this  period: 

I  found  on  going  into  State  Street,  that  Mr. 
Wheaton's  Anti-embargo  resolutions  were  yesterday 
adopted  by  the  Senate  [of  Massachusetts  ].  I  therefore 
this  day  sent  a  letter  to  the  two  Houses  with  my 
resignation  of  my  seat  as  a  Senator  of  the  United 
States.—  I  bid.,  535. 

In  1809  President  Madison  appointed  John 
Quincy  Adams  minister  to  Russia  and  later  he 
was  prominent  among  the  American  peace  com- 
missioners at  Ghent.     September  25,  1814,  he 

wrote: 

in  repelling  an  insolent  charge  of  the 
British  Plenipotentiaries  against  the  government  of 
the  United  States,  of  a  system  of  perpetual  encroach- 
ment upon  the  Indians  under  pretence  of  purchase's,  I 
had  taken  the  ground  of  the  moral  and  religious  duty 
of  a  nation  to  settle,  cultivate,  and  improve  their  terri- 
tory-a  principle  perfectly  recognized  by  the  law  of 
nations,  and  in  my  own  opinion,  the  only  solid  and  un- 
answerable defense  against  the  charge  in  the  British 
note.  Gallatin  saw  and  admitted  the  weight  of  the 
argument,  but  was  afraid  of  ridicule, 
the    terms    God,    and  Providence,    and  Heaven,    Mr. 


34  AMERICAN    HISTORY    S1UDTES. 

Clay  thought  were  canting,  and  Russell  laughed  at 
then).  I  was  obliged  to  give  them  up,  and  with  them 
what  I  thought  the  best  argument  we  had. — Memoirs, 
ILL,  42. 

Clay  and  Gallatin  were  associated  with  Adams 
to  negotiate  a  convention  to  regulate  commerce 
and  navigation  with  Great  Britain.  Adams 
writes  of  it  when  drawn  up: 

I  observed  then  that  there  had  been  another  error, 
both  in  the  preamble  and  in  the  order  of  signatures,  at 
Ghent,  which  it  would  be  necessary  to  avoid  repeating 
at  present.  ...  in  the  copies  on  both  sides 
the  King  of  Great  Britain  and  the  British  Plenipoten- 
tiaries were  first  named;  and  .  .  .  the  sig- 
natures ail  followed  each  other  in  succession,  the 
American  Plenipotentiaries  signing  under  those  of 
Great  Britain.  The  usage  of  all  treaties  between 
European  sovereigns  we  understood  to  be  what  is 
called  the  alternative,  each  of  the  parties  and  his  pleni- 
potentiaries being  first  named  in  the  copy  which  he 
receives;  the  signatures  of  the  respective  plenipoten- 
tiaries being  on  a  line  and  alternate— those  of  each 
party  signing  first  in  the  copy  which  he  receives. 

I  told  Goldburn  that  if  he  would  take  the 
trouble  of  inquiring  at  the  foreign  office  he  would  find 
it  a  universal  usage.  .  .  .  if  he  would  have 
a  draft  copy  made  out  .  .  .  as  they  intended 
to  execute  their  copy,  and  send  it  to  me,  I  would  have 
our  copy  made  out  corresponding  to  it,  ... 
They  promised  to  send  me  such  a  draft  copy. 

)  [  A  day  later  ]  Mr.  Gallatin  then  said  that  I  must 
give  the  transcriber  orders  to  make  out  the  copy  with- 
out any  alteration  in  the  body  of  the  treaty;  which  I 
peremptorily  refused,  and  added,  in  a  heated  and  angry 
manner,  ' '  Mr.  Gallatin,  you  and  Mr.  Clay  may  do  as 
you  please,  but  I  will  not  sign  the  treaty  without  the 
alternative  observed  throughout."  "Now,  don't  fly 
off  in  this  manner,"  said  Mr.  Gallatin.  "Indeed,  Sir,'' 
said  I,  "  I  will  not  sign  the  treaty  in  any  other  form. 
I  am  so  far  from  thinking  with  Mr.  Clay  that  it  is  of 
no  importance,  that  I  think  it  by  much  the  most  im- 
portant thing  that  we  shall  obtain  by  this  treaty."— 
Ibid..  Ill  m  (1815). 


JOHN    QUINCY   ADAMS. 


35 


Many  rumors  of  his  probable  appointment  as 
Secretary  of  State  under  Monroe  reached  Mr. 
Adams  in  England.  December  24,  1816,  he 
wrote: 

I  had  no  expectation,  or  belief,  that  the  office  would 
be  offered  to  me,  until  the  receipt  of  my  mother's  let- 
ter, and  now  I  consider  it  still  a  matter  of  great  uncer- 
tainty. The  question  whether  I  ought  to  accept  the 
place,  if  it  should  be  offered,  is  not  without  difficulties 
in  my  mind.  A  doubt  of  my  competency  for  it  is  very 
sincerely  entertained,  and  ought  perhaps  to  be  decisive. 
At  all  events,  if  I  could  be  rationally  justified  in  ac- 
cepting it,  if  offered,  I  perceive  no  propriety  in  taking 
any  step  whatever  to  seek  it.— Ibid:,  458. 

Some  months  later  he  wrote  to  his  mother: 
The  manner  in  which  the  President  has  thought 
proper  to  nominate  me  was  certainly  honorable  to  him- 
self, as  it  was  without  any  intimation  from  me,  or,  as 
far  a3  I  knew,  from  any  of  my  friends,  which  could 
operate  as  an  inducement  to  him.  His  motives  were 
altogether  of  a  public  nature;  .       -       our  senti- 

ments upon  subject  of  great  public  interest  have  at 
particular  periods  of  our  public  life  been  much  at  vari- 
ance. That  they  may  be  so  again  is  as  certainly  not 
impossible.  If  I  had  any  present  reason  for  expecting 
it,  I  should  deem  it  my  duty  to  decline  the  office 

Ever  since  his  appointment  to  the  Department 
of  State  ha3  brought  me  into  official  relations  with  him, 
I  have  known  few  of  his  opinions  with  which  I  did  not 
cordially  concur.  .  .  .  For  myself,  I  shall 
enter  upon  the  functions  of  my  office  with  a  deep  sense 
of  the  necessity  of  union  with  my  colleagues,  and  with 
a  suitable  impression  that  my  place  is  subordinate;  that 
my  duty  will  be  to  support,  and  not  to  counteract  or 
oppose,  the  President's  administration,  and  that  if  from 
any  cause  I  should  find  my  efforts  to  that  end  ineffect- 
ual it  will  be  my  duty  seasonably  to  withdraw  from 
the  public  service        .         .  —Ibid.,  502-0  k-      & 

The  following  extracts  from  his  report  of  an 
interview  with  the  British  Minister,  Canning, 
on  the  Oregon  question,  will  indicate  the  vigor- 
oat -110  s  of  his  diplomacy: 


36  AMERICAN    HISTORY     STUDIES. 

But  you  will  understand  that  I  am  not  pleased  either 
with  the  grounds  upon  which  you  have  sought  this  con- 
ference, nor  with  the  questions  which  you  have  seen 
fit  to  put  to  me.  .  .  .  The  members  of  the 
legislature  of  this  country  are  not  only  perfectly  inde- 
pendent of  the  Executive,  but  the  Executive  cannot 
permit  itself  to  be  questioned  by  any  foreign  minister 
upon  anything  said  or  done  by  them.  And  as  little  do 
I  admit  your  right  to  ask  any  question  of  our  intentions 
with  regard  to  the  mouth  of  Colombia  River. 

"No,"  said  I,  "  I  have  not  heard  that  you  claim 
exclusively  any  part  of  the  moon;  but  there  is  not  a 
spot  or.  this  habitable  globe  that  I  could  affirm  you  do 
not  claim;  and  there  is  none  which  you  may  not  claim 
with  as  much  color  of  right  as  you  can  have  to  Colom- 
bia River  or  its  mouth."  .  .  .  "Sir,"  said 
I,  "you  may  report  to  your  Government  just  what  you 
please  .  .  .  every  word  that  I  have  said  to 
you  not  only  now,  but  at  any  time,  or  that  I  ever  shall 
say,  provided  you  report  nothing  but  the  truth,  as  I 
have  no  doubt  you  will."        .        .        .         "But, 

I  request  you  to  state  explicitly,  that  I  took 
strong  exception  both  to  the  form  and  to  the  substance 
of  your  application  to  me  on  this  occasion.  To  the 
form,  because  you  came  to  put  questions  to  me  of  an 
irritating  nature  upon  the  foundation  of  the  speeches 
\nd  reports  of  individual  members  of  Congress;  and  to 
the  substance,  because  the  questions  were  of  a  nature 
which  we  do  not  admit  your  right  to  ask. 
the  tone  and  manner  assumed  by  you  in  reply  con- 
vinced me  that  nothing  useful  to  either  party  could  re- 
sult from  any  further  verbal  conference  between  us. " 
—Ibid.,  V,  2U-254. 

The  following  extracts  contain  some  views  of 
Adams's  concerning  his  elevation  to  the  presi- 
dency and  his  duty  therein: 

To  one  thing,  however,  I  had  made  up  my  mind;  I 
would  take  no  one  step  to  advance  or  promote  pretensions 
to  the  presidency.  ^  If  that  office  was  to  be  the  prize  of 
cabal  and  intrigue,  of  purchasing  newspapers,  bribing 
by  appointments,  or  bargaining  for  foreign  missions,  I 
had  no  ticket  in  that  lottery.  Whether  I  had  the  qual- 
ifications necessary  for  the  President  of  the  TJuiipd 


J-OTIN    QUIXCY    ADAMS.  3^ 

States  was,  to  say  the  least,  very  doubtful  to  myself. 
But  that  I  had  no  talent  for  obtaining  the  office  by 
such  means  was  perfectly  clear. — Ibid.,  V,  298  {1821). 
I  determined  to  renominate  every  person  against 
whom  there  was  no  complaint  which  would  have  war- 
ranted his  removal;  and  renominated  every  person 
nominated  by  Mr.  Monroe,  and  upon  whose  nomina- 
tion the  Senate  had  declined  acting.  Mr.  Monroe  al- 
ways acted  on  this  principle  of  renomination. — Ibid., 
VI,  521.      > 

Regarding  his  entering  Congress  after  the 
expiration  of  his  presidential  terra: 

I  said  I  had  in  that  respect  no  scruple  whatever. 
No  person  could  be  degraded  by  serving  the  people  as  a 
Representative  in  Congress.  Nor,  in  my  opinion, 
would  an  ex-President  of  the  United  States  be  degraded 
by  serving  as  a  Selectman  of  his  town,  if  elected  thereto 
by  the  people.—  I  bid,,  VIII,  239,  1830. 

.  had  I  alleged  my  former  station  as  a  rea- 
son for  rejecting  the  suffrages  of  the  people  assigning 
me  a  seat  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  I  should  not 
merely  have  been  chargeable  with  arrogance,  but  should 
have  exposed  myself  to  ridicule.  .  .  .  My  re- 
turn to  public  life  in  a  subordinate  station  is  disagree- 
able to  my  family,  and  disapproved  by  some  of  my 
friends;  though  no  one  of  them  has  expressed  that  dis- 
approbation to  me.  .  .  .  But  this  call  upon  me 
by  the  people  of  the  district  in  which  I  reside,  to  rep- 
resent them  in  Congress,  has  been  spontaneous,  and, 
although  counteracted  by  a  double  opposition,  federal- 
ist and  Jacksonite,  I  have  received  nearly  three  votes 
in  four  throughout  the  district.  My  election  as  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  was  not  half  so  gratifying  to 
my  inmost  soul.  No  election  or  appointment  conferred 
upon  me  ever  gave  me  so  much  pleasure. — Ibid.,  246- 
247.      q 

I  have  been  for  some  time  occupied  day  and  night, 
when  at  home,  in  assorting  and  recording  the  petitions 
and  remonstrances  against  the  annexation  of  Texas, 
and  other  anti-slavery  petitions,  which  flow  upon  me 
in  torrents.—  Ibid.,  IX,  377  {1837). 


38  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES 

My  occupations  .  .  .  have  been  confined 
.  %  .  for  the  last  ten  days  to  the  defence  of 
myself  against  an  extensive  combination  and  conspir- 
acy, in  and  out  of  Congress,  to  crush  the  liberties  of 
the  free  people  of  this  Union  by  disgracing  me  with  a 
brand  of  censnre  and  displacing  me  from  the  chair  of 
the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs,  for  my  perseverance 
in  "presenting  abolition  petitions. — Memoirs,  XI,  80 
(1842).  & 

One  hundred  members  of  the  House  represent  slaves; 
four-fifths  of  whom  would  crucify  me  if  their  votes 
could  erect  the  cross;  forty  members,  representatives 
of  the  free,  in  the  league  of  slavery  and  mock  Democ- 
racy, would  break  me  on  the  wheel,  if  their  votes  or 
wishes  could  turn  it  round;  and  four-fifths  of  the  other 
hundred  and  twenty  are  either  so  cold  or  so  lukewarm 
that  they  are  ready  to  desert  me  at  the  first  scintilla- 
tion of  indiscretion  on  my  part.  The  only  formidable 
danger  with  which  I  am  beset  is  that  of  my  own  tem- 
per.— Ibid.,  86  {1842). 

Extracts  dealing  with  the  Louisiana  Purchase? 
the  slavery  struggle,  Florida,  South  America, 
Cuba,  Texas,  and  related  subjects  follow. 

In  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Wirt,  the  Attor- 
ney General,  about  the  president's  authority  to 
deliver  fugitive  criminals  to  England  without 
act  of  Congress,  Adams  stated  that  the  presi- 
dent 

could  not  be  bound  by  the  duty 
without  possessing  the  authority  necessary  for  its 
discharge. 

He  [Wirt]  said  that  doctrine  was  too  bold  for  him: 
he  was  too  much  of  a  Virginian  for  that.  G 

I  told  him  that  Virginian  Constitutional  scruples 
were  accommodating  things.  Whenever  the  exercise 
of  a  power  did  not  happen  to  suit  them,  they  would 
allow  of  nothing  but  powers  expressly  written;  but 
when  it  did,  they  had  no  aversion  to  implied  powers. 
Where  was  there  in  the  Constitution  a  power  to  pur- 
chase Louisiana?  He  said  there  was  a  power  to  make 
treaties.  O"  Aye!  a  treaty  to  abolish  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States ?  "     "Oh,  no,  no !  " 


JOHN    QUINCY    ADAMS.  39 

But  the  Louisiana  purchase  was  in  substance  a  dis- 
solution and  recomposition  of  the  whole  Union.  It 
made  a  Union  totally  different  from  that  for  which  the 
Constitution  had  been  formed.  It  gives  despotic  pow- 
ers over  the  territories  purchased.  It  naturalizes  for- 
eign nations  in  a  mass.  It  makes  French  and  Spanish 
laws  a  part  of  the  laws  of  the  Union.  It  introduces 
whole  systems  of  legislation  abhorrent  to  the  spirit  and 
character  of  our  institutions,  and  all  this  done  by  an 
Administration  which  came  in  blowing  a  trumpet 
against  implied  powers.  After  this,  to  nibble  at  a 
bank,  a  road,  a  canal,  the  mere  mint  and  cummin  of 
the  law,  was  but  glorious  inconsistency. 

He  said  the  people  had  sanctioned  it.  "How  the 
people?"  By  their  Representatives  in  Congress;  they 
were  the  people. 

"Oh,"  said  I,  "that  doctrine  is  too  bold  for  me." — 
Ibid.,  V,  400  {1821). 

And  so  it  is  that  a  law  for  perpetuating  slavery  m 
Missouri,  and  perhaps  in  North  America,  has  been 
smuggled  through  both  Houses  of  Congress.  I  have 
been  convinced  from  the  first  starting  of  this  question 
that  it  could  not  end  otherwise.  The  fault  is  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which  has  sanctioned 
a  dishonorable  compromise  with  slavery.  There  is 
henceforth  no  remedy  for  it  but  a  new  organization  of 
the  Union  to  effect  which  a  concert  of  all  the  white 
States  is  indispensable.  Whether  that  can  ever  be  ac- 
complished is  doubtful.  .  .  .  the  cement  of 
common  interest  produced  by  slavery  is  stronger  and 
more  solid  than  that  of  unmingled  freedom, 
the  slave  States  have  clung  together  in  one  unbroken 
phalanx,  and  have  been  victorious  by  the  means  of  ac- 
complices and  deserters  from  the  ranks  of  freedom. 
Time  only  can  show  whether  the  contest  may  ever  be 
with  equal  advantage  renewed.—  Ibid.,    V,  4  {1820). 

I  have  favored  this  Missouri  compromise,  believing  it 
to  be  all  that  could  be  effected  under  the  present  Con- 
stitution, and  from  extreme  unwillingness  to  put  the 
Union  at  hazard.  But  perhaps  it  would  have  been  a 
wiser  as  well  as  a  bolder  course  to  have  persisted  in 
the  restriction  upon  Missouri,  till  it  should  have  ter- 
minated in  a  convention  of  the  States  to  revise  and 
amend  the  Constitution.     This  would  have  produced  a 


40  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES 

new  Union  of  the  thirteen  or  fourteen  States  unpolluted 
with  slavery,  with  a  great  and  glorious  object  to  effect, 
namely,  that  of  rallying  to  their  standard  the  other 
States  by  the  universal  emancipation  of  their  slaves.  If 
the  Union  must  be  dissolved,  slavery  is  precisely  the 
question  upon  which  it  ought  to  break.  For  the  pres- 
ent, however,  this  contest  is  laid  asleep.— Ibid.,  V,  10. 

A  dissolution  of  the  Union  for  the  cause  of  slavery 
would  be  followed  by  a  servile  war  in  the  slave-holding 
States,  combined  with  a  war  between  the  two  severed 
portions  of  the  Union.  It  seems  to  me  that  its  result 
must  be  the  extirpation  of  slavery  from  this  whole  con- 
tinent; and,  calamitous  and  desolating  as  this  course 
of  events  in  its  progress  must  be,  so  glorious  would  be 
its  final  issue,  that,  as  God  shall  judge  me,  I  dare  not 
say  that  it  is  not  to  be  desired.— 1  bid.,  V,  210  {1820). 

"I  told  him  that  I  understood  the  map  of  the  country 
rather  too  well  to  suppose  it  would  ever  be  possible  for 
me  to  do  anything  that  could  make  me  popular  in  the 
Western  country;  that  as  to  the  treaty  [of  1819  ],  I  had 
never  set  the  value  upon  it  that  was  supposed,  and  of 
all  the  members  of  the  Administration,  I  was  the  last 
who  had  consented  to  take  the  Sabine  for  our  western 
boundary.  I  had  no  doubt  that  if  the  treaty  should  be 
set  aside  we  should  ultimately  obtain  more  territory 
than  it  would  secure  to  us,  but  we  should  get  the  same 
territory  with  the  treaty  sooner  than  we  should  want 
it;  and  even  now  I  thought  the  greatest  danger  of  this 
Union  was  in  the  overgrown  extent  of  its  territory 
combining  with  the  slavery  question.  I  added  as  my 
belief,  that  there  would  be  a  majority  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  now  who  would  not  accept  of  the 
province  of  Texas  as  a  gift  unless  slavery  should  be  ex- 
cluded from  it.  Since  the  Missouri  debate,  I  con- 
sidered the  continuance  of  the  Union  for  any  length  of 
time  as  very  precarious,  and  entertained  serious  doubts 
whether  Louisiana  and  slavery  would  not  ultimately 
break  us  up.—  Ibid.,  V,  67-68  [1S20). 

They  [the  South  Americans]  are  not  likely  to  pro- 
mote the  spirit  either  of  freedom  or  order  by  their  ex- 
ample. 'The}7  have  not  the  first  elements  of  good  or 
free  government.  Arbitrary  power,  military  and  ec- 
clesiastical, was  stamped  upon  their  education,  upon 
their  habits,  and  upon  all  their  institutions.     Civil  dis 


JOHN    QU1NCY    ADAMS.  41 

sension  was  infused  into  all  their  seminal  principles. 
War  and  mutual  destruction  was  in  every  member  of 
their  organization,  moral,  political,  and  physical.  I 
had  little  expectation  of  any  beneficial  result  to  this 
country  from  any  future  connection  with  them,  politi- 
cal or  commercial.  We  should  derive  no  improvement 
to  jur  own  institution  by  any  communion  with  theirs. 
Nor  was  there  any  appearance  of  a  disposition  in  them 
to  take  any  political  lesson  from  us.— Ibid.,  V,  325 
U821). 

Neither  were  the  United  States  desirous  of  making 
it  [Cuba]  a  part  of  their  confederation.  But  the  island 
was  at  their  doors;  they  could  not  suffer  it  to  be  trans- 
ferred from  Spain  to  any  other  European  power,  nor 
could  they  willingly  see  it  conquered,  either  by  Mexico 
or  Columbia.  .  .  .  Cuba  was  to  the  United 
States  an  object  of  paramount  commercial  importance. 
The  capital  employed  in  the  trade  was  greater  than 
that  with  all  the  dominion  of  France;  the  tonnage 
employed  in  it  nearly  equal  to  that  with  Great  Britain. 
We  were  content  that  it  should  remain  in  its  present 
condition,  under  the  dominion  of  Spain,  but  enjoying 
a  free  trade  with  us.— Ibid.,   VII,  10  {1825). 

With  regard  to  the  project  of  a  separate  northern 
confederacy,  formed  in  the  winter  of  1833  and  4,  in 
consequence  of  the  Louisiana  cession,  it  is  not  to  me 
that  you  must  apply  for  copies  of  the  correspondence 
in  which  it  was  contained.  To  that  and  to  every  other 
project  of  disunion,  I  have  been  constantly  opposed. 
My  principles  do  not  admit  the  right  even  of  the  peo- 
ple, still  less  of  the  legislature  of  any  one  state  in  the 
union,  to  secede  at  pleasure  from  the  union.  No  pro- 
vision is  made  for  the  exercise  of  this  right,  either  by 
the  federal  or  any  of  the  state  constitutions.  The  act 
of  exercising  it,  presupposes  a  departure  from  the  prin- 
ciple of  compact  and  a  resort  -to  that  of  force. 

But  to  those  who  think  that  each  state  is  a 
sovereign  judge,  not  only  of  its  own  rights,  but  of  the 
extent  of  powers  conferred  upon  the  general  govern- 
ment by  the  people  of  the  whole  union;  and  that  each 
state,  giving  its  own  construction  to  the  constitutional 
powers  of  congress,  may  array  its  separate  sovereignty 
against  every  act  of  that  boily  transcending  this 
estimate  of  their  powers— to  say  of  men  holding  these 
4 


42  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUblES. 

principles,  that,  for  the  ten  years  from  1804  to  1814, 
they  were  intending  a  dissolution  of  the  union,  and  the 
formation  of  a  new  confederacy,  is  charging  them  with 
nothing  more  than  with  acting  up  to  their  principles. 
— Niks,  XXXV,  415-416. 

Nullification  is  the  provocative  to  that  brutal  and 
foul  contest  of  force,  which  has  hitherto  baffled  all  the 
efforts  of  the  European  and  Southern  American  nations, 
to  introduce  among  them  constitutional  governments 
of  liberty  and  order.  It  strips  us  of  that  peculiar  and 
unimitated  characteristic  of  all  our  legislation — free  de- 
bate. It  makes  the  bayonet  the  arbiter  of  the  law;  it 
has  no  argument  but  the  thunderbolt. 
^Oration,  July  4  (1831).     Niks,  XL,  431. 

Rouse  in  the  heart  of  the  slave  holder  the  terror  of 
his  slave,  and  it  will  be  a  motive  with  him  paramount 
to  all  others  never  to  vote  for  any  man  not  a  slave 
holder  like  himself.—  Memoirs,  IX,  252  (1835). 

I  gave  them  [an  anti-slavery  committee]  a  full  and 
candid  exposition  of  my  own  principles  and  views  with 
regard  to  the  institution  of  domestic  slavery,  differing 
from  theirs  under  a  sense  of  the  compact  and  compro- 
mise in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  I  de- 
clined attendance  at  any  public  meeting  of  the  socie- 
ties, and  said  I  believed  the  cause  itself  would  be  more 
benefitted  by  such  service  as  I  could  render  to  it  in 
the  discharge  of  my  duty  in  Congress  than  by  giving 
notoriety  to  any  action  on  my  part  in  support  of  the  so- 
cieties or  in  connection  with  them.  — Ibid. ,  IX,302  (1 836). 

The  prohibition  of  the  internal  slave- trade  is  within 
the  constitutional  power  of  Congress,  and,  in  my  opin- 
ion, is  among  their  incumbent  duties.  I  have  gone  as 
far  upon  this  article,  the  abolition  of  slavery,  as  the 
public  opinion  of  the  free  portion  of  the  Union  will 
bear,  and  so  far  that  scarcely  a  slave-holding  member 
of  the  House  dares  to  vote  with  me  upon  any  question. 
I  have  as  yet  been  thoroughly  sustained  in  my  own 
State;  but  one  step  further  and  I  hazard  my  own  stand- 
ing and  influence  there,  my  own  final  overthrow,  and 
the  cause  of  liberty  itself  for  in  definite  time,  certainly 
for  more  than  my  remnant  of  life.—  Ibid.,  IX,  418  (1834). 

' '  The  world,  the  flesh,  and  all  the  devils  in  hell  are 
arrayed  against  any  man  who  now  in  this  North  Amer- 


JOHN   QUINCY    ADAMS.  43 

ican  Union  shall  dare  to  join  the  standard  of  Almighty 
God  to  put  down  the  African  slave-trade;  and  what 
can  I,  upon  the  verge  of  my  seventy-fourth  birthday, 
with  a  shaking  hand,  a  darkening  eye,  a  drowsy  brain, 
and  with  all  my  faculties  dropping  from  me  one  by  one, 
as  the  teeth  are  dropping  from  my  head— what  can  I  do 
for  the  cause  of  God  and  man,  for  the  progress  of  hu- 
man emancipation,  for  the  suppression  of  the  African 
slave-trade?  Yet  my  conscience  presses  me  on;  let  me 
but  die  upon  the  breach."— I  bid.,  X,  454  (1841). 

Hamilton's  report         .  .         .  represents  the 

Texans  as  a  people  struggling  for  their  liberty,  and 
therefore  entitled  to  our  sympathy.  The  fact  is  di- 
rectly the  reverse— they  are  fighting  for  the  establish- 
ment and  perpetuation  of  slavery,  and  that  is  the  cause 
of  the  South  Carolinian  sympathy  for  them.—  Ibid.,  IX, 
333  (1886). 

I  offered  an  amendment  ...  .  :  That  the 
power  of  annexing  the  people  of  a  foreign  Government 
to  this  Union  has  not  been  delegated  to  the  Congress 
nor  to  any  Department  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  but  has  been  reserved  to  the  people.  That  any 
attempt  by  Act  of  Congress  or  by  treaty  to  annex  the  re- 
public of  Texas  to  this  Union  would  be  an  usurpation 
of  power,  which  it  would  be  the  right  and  the  duty  of 
the  free  people  of  the  Union  to  resist  and  annul.—  Ibid., 
X,  SO  (1838). 

This  was  a  memorable  day  in  the  annals  of  the  world. 
The  treaty  for  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  this  Union 
was  this  day  sent  in  to  the  Senate:  and  with  it  went 
the  freedom  of  the  human  race.—  Ibid.,  XII,  13  {1844). 
I  record  this  vote  [rejecting  the  Texan  treaty]  as  a 
deliverance,  I  trust,  by  the  special  interposition  of  Al- 
mighty God,  of  my  country  and  of  human  liberty  from 
a  conspiracy  comparable  to  that  of  Lucius  Sergius  Cati- 
lina.  May  it  prove  not  a  mere  temporary  deliverance, 
like  that,  only  preliminary  to  the  fatally  successful 
conspiracy  of  Julius  Caesar!  The  annexation  of  Texas 
to  this  Union  is  the  first  step  to  the  conquest  of  all 
Mexico,  of  the  West  India  Islands,  of  a  maritime,  col- 
onizing, slave-tainted  monarchy,  and  of  extinguished 
freedom.—  I  bid.,  XII,  49  {18W- 
I  do  not  admit  that  there  is,  even  among  the  peace 


44  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES 

powers  of  Congress,  such  authority;  but  in  war  there 
are  many  ways  by  which  Congress  not  only  have  the 
authority,  but  are  bound  to  interfere  with  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery  in  the  states.  .  .  .  Mr. 
Chairman,  are  you  ready  for  all  these  wars?  A  Mexi- 
can war?  a  war  with  Great  Britain,  if  not  with  France? 
a  general  Indian  war?  a  servile  war?  and,  as  an  inevit- 
able consequence  of  them  all,  a  civil  war?  And  do  you 
imagine  that  while  with  your  eyes  open  you  are  wil- 
ful ly  kindling,  and  then  closing  your  eyes  and  blindly 
rushing  into  them;  do  you  imagine  that  while,  in  the 
very  nature  of  things,  your  own  Southern  and  South- 
western States,  must  be  the  Flanders  of  these  compli- 
cated wars,  the  battlefield  upon  which  the  last  great 
conflict  must  be  fought  between  slavery  and  emancipa- 
tion ?  do  you  imagine  that  your  Congress  will  have  no 
constitutional  authority  to  interfere  with  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery  in  any  ivay  in  the  States  of  this  confed- 
eracy? Sir,  they  must  and  will  interfere  with  it— per- 
haps to  sustain  it  by  war;  perhaps  to  abolish  it  by 
treaties  of  peace;  and  they  will  not  only  possess  the 
constitutional  power  so  to  interfere,  but  they  will  be 
bound  in  duty  to  do  it  by  the  express  provisions  of  the 
Constitution  itself.  From  the  instant  that  your  slave- 
holding  states  become  the  theatre  of  war,  civil,  servile* 
or  foreign,  from  that  instant  the  war  powers  of  Con- 
gress extend  to  interference  with  the  institution  of 
slavery  in  every  way  by  which  it  can  be  interfered 
with,  from  a  claim  of  indemnity  for  slaves  taken  or 
destroyed,  to  the  cession  of  the  State  burdened  with 
slavery  to  a  foreign  power. — Cong.  Globe,  24th  Cong., 
1st  Sess.,  App.,  434-435. 

References  to  Jackson's  administration: 

To  feed  the  cormorant  appetite  for  place,  and  to 
reward  the  prostitution  of  canvassing  detainers,  are 
the  only  principles  yet  discernible  in  the  conduct  of  the 
President,  and  indecision  and  instability  are  already 
strongly  marked  in  his  movements        .       .  Me- 

moirs, VIII,  113. 

The  appointments,  almost  without  exception,  are 
conferred  upon  the  vilest  purveyors  of  slander  during 
the  late  electioneering  campaign,  and  an  excessive  die- 


JOHN    QUINCY    ADAMS.  45 

proportion  of  places  is  given  to  editors  of  the  foulest 
presses.  Very  few  reputable  appointments  have  been 
made,        .        .        .        —Ibid.,  188. 

Jackson    rides    roughshod  over  all   the   rights  and 
powers  of  the  Senate  relating  to  appointments.     Many 
of  his  own  party  in  the  Senate  are  disgusted  with  him 
for  it;    but    they  dare  not  oppose  him 
—Ibid.,  206. 

I  would  not  be  present  to  witness  her  [Harvard's] 
disgrace  in  conferring  her  highest  literary  honors  upon 
a  barbarian  who  could  not  write  a  sentence  of  gram- 
mar and  hardly  could  spell  his  own  name.— I b id.,  546. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  in  outline: 

I  told  him  [the  Russian  Minister]  specially  that  we 
should  contest  the  right  of  Russia  to  any  territorial  es- 
tablishment on  this  continent,  and  that  we  should 
assume  distinctly  the  principle  that  the  American  con- 
tinents are  no  longer  subjects  for  any  new  European 
colonial  establishments. — Memoirs,  VI,  163  [1823). 

Extracts  follow  relating  to  various  important 
subjects: 

The  question  of  the  power  of  congress  to  authorize 
the  making  of  internal  improvements,  is,  in  other 
words,  a  question  whether  the  people  of  this  union,  in 
forming  their  common  social  compact,  as  avowedly  for 
the  purpose  of  promoting  their  general  welfare,  have 
performed  their  work  in  a  manner  so  ineffably  stupid, 
as  to  deny  themselves  the  means  of  bettering  their  own 
condition.  I  have  too  much  respect  for  the  intellect  of 
my  country  to  believe  it.—  Xiles,  XXVI,  251  (1824). 

if  the  house  shall  settle  this  question 
by  declaring  that  they  will  engage  in  no  more  works  of 
internal  improvement,  this  Union  will  soon  break  in 
pieces;  and  I  will  add  that  it  will  not  deserve  to  be  pre- 
served.— Co rig.  Debates,  22nd  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  3256. 

<<  .  .  .  the  Pre-emption  bill  was  taken  up 
.  the  thirst  of  a  tiger  for  blood  is  the 
fittest  emblem  of  the  rapacity  with  which  the  members 
of  all  the  new  states  fly  at  the  public  lands.  The  con- 
stituents upon  whom  they  depend  are  all  settlers,  or 
tame  and  careless  spectators  of  the  pillage.  They  are 
themselves  enormous  speculators  and  land-jobbers.     It 


±0  AMERICAN    III:  TORY    STUDIES. 

were  a  vain  attempt  to  resist   them   here.  —  Memoirs, 
X,  19  (1838). 

I  said  that  the  ultimate  principle  of  my  system  with 
reference  to  the  great  interests  of  the  country  was  con- 
ciliation and  not  collision,  I  was  satisfied  with  the  tar- 
iff as  now  established,  and  should,  if  any  change  in  it 
should  be  desired,  incline  rather  to  reduce  than  to  in- 
crease it.  There  was,  in  my  opinion,  no  constitutional 
question  involved  in  the  discussion.  The  revenue  was 
abundant,  and  the  protection  to  manufactures  adequate 
to  their  fair  claims  for  support;  and  if  the  tariff  should 
be  found  to  bear  hard  upon  the  agricultural  and  com- 
mercial interests,  I  should  incline  to  an  alleviaf  ion  of 
it  in  their  favor.—  Ibi d.,  VI,  451  (1824). 

The  subscriber  [J.  Q.  Adams]  has  long  entertained 
the  opinion  that  the  existence  of  a  national  bank  is 
indissolubly  connected  with  the  continuance  of  our 
National  Union.  The  fiscal  operations  of  the  Govern- 
ment in  all  its  branches,  he  believes,  can  not,  without 
the  aid  of  such  an  institution,  be  conducted,  he  will 
not  say  well,  but  at  all.  He  does  not  say  that  the  pres- 
ent Bank  of  the  United  States  is  indispensable; 
—From  Report  on  The  Bank  of  the  United  States,  Cong. 
Debates,  22  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  App.,  72. 

The  spirit  of  party  has  become  so  inveterate  and  so 
virulent  in  our  country;  it  has  so  totally  absorbed  the 
understanding,  and  the  heart  of  almost  all  the  distin- 
guished men  among  us,  that  I,  who  can  not  cease  to 
consider  all  the  individuals  of  both  parties  as  my  coun- 
trymen; who  can  neither  approve  nor  disapprove,  in  a 
lump,  either  of  the  men  or  the  measures  of  either  party; 
who  see  both  sides  claiming  an  exclusive  privilege  of 
patriotism,  and  using  against  each  other  weapons  of 
political  warfare  which  I  never  can  handle,  can  not  but 
cherish  that  congenial  spirit  which  has  always  pre- 
served itself  pure  from  the  infectious  vapors  of  faction; 
which  considers  temperance,  as  one  of  the  first  political 
duties;  and  which  can  perceive  a  very  distinct  shade 
of  difference  between  political  candor  and  political 
hypocrisy.— Niles,  XXXVI,  17 -IS  (1S09). 

Concerning  Clay  (i820): 

In  politics,  as  in  private  life,  Clay  is  essentially  a 
gamester,   and,    with   a  vigorous  intellect,   an   ardent 


JOHN   QUINCY    ADAMS.  47 

spirit,  a  handsome  elocution,  though  with  a  mind  very 
defective  in  elementary  knowledge,  and  a  very  undi- 
gested system  of  ethics,  he  has  all  the  qualities  which 
belong  to  that  class  of-  human  characters. — Memoirs, 
V,59. 

Of  Daniel  Webster  he  says  (1841): 

my  speech  .  .  .  has  given 
him  the  means  of  saving  himself  from  ruin,  and  his 
country  from  a  most  disastrous  war.  My  reward  from 
him  will  be  professions  of  respect  and  esteem,  speeches 
of  approbation  and  regard  for  me  to  my  friends,  know- 
ing that  they  will  be  reported  to  me,  secret  and  deep- 
laid  intrigues  against  me,  and  still  more  venomous 
against  my  son.  Such  is  human  nature,  in  the  gigan- 
tic intellect,  the  envious  temper,  the  ravenous  ambi- 
tion, and  the  rotten  heart  of  Daniel  Webster.  His 
treatment  of  me  has  been,  is,  and  will  be,  an  improved 
edition  of  Andrew  Jackson's  gratitude." — Ibid.,  XI, 
20. 

PERSONAL  ITEMS 

My  short  discipline  of  fifteen  months  at  Harvard 
University  was  the  introduction  to  all  the  prosperity 
that  has  ever  befallen  me,  and  perhaps  saved  me  from 
early  ruin. — Ibid.,  IX,  35 k- 

Five  or  six  small  crackers  and  a  glass  of  water  give 
me  a  sumptuous  dinner.  ...  I  am  calm  and 
composed  for  the  evening  session,  and  far  better  pre- 
pared for  taking  part  in  any  debate  than  after  the  most 
temperate  dinner  at  home  or  abroad. — Ibid.,  IX,  408 
(1837). 

I  informed  Mr.  Whitney  also  of  my  wish  to  join  in 
communion  with  the  church  of  which  he  is  the  pastor. 
I  ought  to  have  joined  it  thirty  years  ago  and  more, 
but  the  tumult  of  the  world,  false  shame,  a  distrust  of 
my  own  worthiness  to  partake  of  the  communion,  and 
»  residence  elsewhere,  and  continually  changing,  made 
me  defer  it  to  a  more  convenient  opportunity. — Ibid., 
VII,  1A7  (1826). 

I  deem  it  the  duty  of  every  Christian  man,  when  he 
betakes  himself  to  his  nightly  pillow,  in  self-examina- 
tion to  eay,  What  good  have  I  done  this  day?  Ay!  and 
wbat  evil  have  I  done  that  may  be  repaired  or  repented 
of?    Nor  should  he  rise  from  that  pillow  the  next  morn- 


48  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

ing  till  after  the  enquiry,  What  good  can  I  do  and  to 
whom  this  day?  I  have  made  this  my  rule  for  many 
years.— Ibid.,  IX,  269  (1S42). 

My  self-examination  this  night  gave  rise  to  many 
mortifying  reflections.  I  often  se^  and  often  condemn 
my  faults.  But  for  the  efficacy  of  correction  I  am 
afraid  some  penalty  is  necessary. — Ibid.,  I,  276  {1803). 
conversation,  an  art  of  which  I  never 
had  an  adequate  idea.  .         .         I  never  knew 

how  to  make,  to  control,  or  to  change  it.  I  am  by 
nature  a  silent  animal,  .  .  .  my  deficiency 
—the  talent  of  starting  the  game.  A  man  who  has 
that  need  talk  but  little  himself.—  I  bid.,  V,  165. 

Literature  has  been  the  charm  of  my  life,  and,  could 
I  have  carved  out  my  own  fortunes,  to  literature  would 
my  whole  life  have  been  devoted.—  I  bid.,  V,  219  (1820). 

At  certain  seasons,  however,  the  propensity  becomes 
too  strong  for  me.  I  walk  and  muse  and  poor  forth 
premeditated  verse,  which  it  takes  me  six  or  nine 
months  to  lay  by  and  resume  to  find  it  goo  1  for  noth- 
ing. It  never  appears  eo  to  me  when  I  compose  it.  In 
a  few  instances  I  have  suffered  the  publication  of  my 
effusions,  and  I  am  accredited  as  one  of  the  smallest 
poets  of  my  country.— I  bid.,  VIII,  339  (1831). 

OTHER  BRIEF  EXTRACTS 

A  letter  book,  a  diary,  a  book  of  receipts  and  ex- 
penses—these three  books,  kept  without  intermission, 
should  be  the  rule  of  duty  of  every  man  who  can  read 
and  write.  But  to  keep  them  perseveringly  requires  a 
character  to  which  toil  is  a  pleasure,  and  of  which  un- 
tiring patience  is  an  essential  element.—  1  bid.,  IX,  159. 

Democracy  has  no  monuments;  it  strikes  no  medals; 
it  bears  the  head  of  no  man  upon  a  coin;  its  very  essence 
is  iconoclastic.  This  is  why  Congress  has  never  been 
able  to  erect  a  monument  to  Washington.—  I  bid,, 
VIII,  483. 

in  this  country,  politicians  of  desperate 
private  fortunes  Always  find  the  means  of  keeping 
themselves  -above  water  as  public  men.  —  Ibid.,  V,  39. 
In  the  turbid  stream  of  political  life,  a  conscientious 
man  must  endeavor  to  do  justice  to  all,  and  to  return 
good  for  evil ;  but  he  must  always  expect  a  return  of 
evil  for  good.—  Ibid,,  IX,  2U2. 


JOHN    QU1KCY    ADAMS.  49 

A  remark  that  I  have  occasion  frequently  to  make  is, 
that  moral  considerations  seldom  appear  to  have  much 
weight  in  the  minds  of  our  statesmen,  unless  connected 
with  popular  feelings.         .         .  My  own  delib- 

erate opinion  is,  that  the  more  of  pure  moral  principle 
is  carried  into  the  policy  and  conduct  of  a  Government, 
the  wiser  and  more  profound  will  that  policy  be  — 
Ibid.,  V,  47(1820). 

This  fashion  of  peddling  for  popularity  by  travelling 
round  the  country  gathering  crowds  together,  hawking 
for  public  dinners,  and  spouting  empty  speeches,  is 
growing  into  high  fashion.  It  was  formerly  confined 
to  the  Presidents,  but  De  Witt  Clinton  made  some  un- 
successful experiments  of  it.  Mr.  Clay  has  mounted 
that  hobby  often,  and  rides  him  very  hard.— Ibid, 
IX  J  5  U833). 

QUESTIONS. 

1.  What  can  you  find  about  Adam's  early  training 
and  education?  2.  What  were  his  views  of  office  hold- 
ing? 3.  What  languages  do  you  find  him  studying  at 
one   time?     4.    How  wide  was  his  range  of  reading? 

1.  Compare  his  views  of  the  tariff  and  the  Naviga- 
tion Act.  2.  Wherein  are  they  similar  subjects?  8. 
What  were  the  relations  of  Adams  to  the  political  par- 
ties of  his  time?  4.  What  were  his  views  of  parties 
and  partisanship?  5.  What  reasons  did  he  give  for 
any  change  of  party?  6.  What  did  he  think  the  duty 
of  the  Senate  as  to  appointments?  7.  What  was  his 
influence  in  the  Senate  first  and  last?  8.  What  change 
occurred  in  his  political  prospects  while  in  the  Senate, 
and  why?  9.  What  was  his  position  on  the  embargo 
and  its  effect  ?  10.  Can  you  decide  whether  he  thought 
the  embargo  a  wise  measure? 

1 .  Views  of  Adams  as  to  the  settlement  of  the  West 
and  Indian  rights  to  land.  2.  What  stand  did  he  take 
as  to  signatures  to  treaties,  and  why  was  he  so  decided 
about  it?  3.  Form  an  opinion  of  Adams  as  a  diplomat. 
4.  How  long  before  his  election  do  you  find  him  to  be  a 
presidential  possibility?  5.  Why  was  he  so  much  grat- 
ified at  his  election  to  the  House  of  Representatives? 
6.  What  does  he  regard  as  the  causes  of  the  opposition 
to  him  in  Congress?  7.  Compare  the  views  of  Wirt  and 
Adams  as  to  implied  powers  in  the  constitution.®  8. 
Can  you  determine  whether  Adams  opposed  the  Louisi- 
ana purchase?  9.  Determine  his  views  as  to  expansion 
in  general.'  10.  What  conditions  affected  them  in  some 
cases  that  are  now  non-existent? 


50  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

1.  What  solutions  of  the  slavery  problem  did  Adami 
suggest  ?  2.  Which  one  was  highly  prophetic  of  the  his- 
torical solution?  3.  Find  prophetic  elements  in  the 
others  as  far  as  possible.  4.  Why  could  not  Adams  be 
popular  in  the  West?  5.  What  were  his  views  as  to 
Texas  in  1819?  6.  Much  later?  7.  How  nearly  cor- 
rect was  his  judgment  as  to  the  S.  A.  republics?  8. 
What  can  you  learn  of  projects  to  dissolve  the  Union? 
9.  How  near  did  Adams  come  to  favoring  a  dissolution 
of  it?  10.  What  were  his  views  at  different  periods  as 
to  its  stability?  11.  What  did  he  think  of  nullification? 
12.  Of  the  abolitionists  and  of  abolition?  13.  Collect 
his  views  on  all  possible  phases  of  the  slavery  question. 
14.  How  important  did  Adams  consider  the  work  of 
internal  improvements?  15.  How  much  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  can  you  find?  16.  What  did  Adams  think  of 
the  public  lands? 

1.  Sum  up  the  personal  traits  of  J.  Q.  Adams.  2. 
What  elements  of  character  contributed  to  his  success- 
ful career.  3.  Write  his  life  based  on  these  extracts. 
4.  What  points  are  too  obscure  for  satisfactory  treat- 
ment? 5.  Which  of  the  questions  of  his  time  are  open 
questions  to-day?  6.  On  which  of  the  settled  questions 
was  he  right?  7.  On  which  was  he  wrong?  8.  Were 
there  any  changes  in  views  due  to  wider  experience  or 
to  changed  conditions?  9.  Which  of  your  answers  to 
the  above  questions  are  you  sure  of?  10.  Which  are 
merely  an  opinion.  11.  Which  questions  are  unanswer- 
able from  the  given  data?  12.  Consider  the  value  of 
the  material  of  this  study.  13.  What  are  your  conclu- 
sions concerning  the  man?  14.  Ask  and  answer  other 
questions  of  your  own?  15.  Use  the  questions  of  last 
month  so  far  as  they  are  adapted  to  this  study. 


HENRY  CLAY 


Born  near  Richmond,  1777.  Moved  to  Ken- 
tucky, 1797.  Member  of  Kentucky  legislature, 
off  and  on,  1801-1811.  Senator,  1806;  again, 
1809.  Speaker  House  of  Representatives,  1811- 
1821.  1823-1825.  Secretary  of  State,  1825-1829. 
Candidate  for  President,  1824, 1832, 1844.  Can- 
didate for  nomination,  184C,  1848.  Senator, 
1829-1842;  again,  1849-1852.    Died,  1852. 


CHAPTER  III 
HENRY  CLAY 

PERHAPS  no  man  in  American  history  has 
had  so  great  a  direct  influence  on  legis 
lation  as  Henry  Clay.  As  Speaker  of  the 
House  for  about  twelve  years  he  appointed  the 
committees,  and  thus  determined  largely  the 
direction  legislation  should  take.  His  influence 
as  Speaker  was  also  a  powerful  factor  in  other 
ways.  From  1831  to  1852  he  was  in  the  Senate 
for  the  larger  part  of  the  time,  and  shared  with 
Webster  and  Calhoun  in  its  leadership.  In 
many  ways,  probably,  he  was  not  the  equal  of 
either,  but  as  a  leader  of  men  he  was  their  su- 
perior. It  thus  happened  that  he  could  secure 
his  will  more  frequently  than  either.  On  the 
whole  his  career  was  more  completely  legislative 
than  any  of  our  other  great  statesmen.  Only 
once,  in  1814-15,  did  he  turn  to  diplomacy, 
and  but  once,  from  1825-29,  did  he  enter  the 
field  of  administration.  His  life  was  given  over 
to  a  study  of  legislative  processes  and  legisla- 
tive needs. 

It  may  be  confidently  affirmed  that  legisla- 
tion is  more  fundamental,  and  more  important, 
than  either  administrative  or  judicial  processes. 
Primarily  it  has  to  do  with  determining  the 
will  of  the  state,  and  securing  its  proper  and 
adequate  expression      To   be  sure,  the  execu- 


HENRY   CLAY.  53 

tive  department  of  government  must  carry  that 
will  into  operation,  or  it  is  worthless,  or  possi- 
bly worse.  The  judiciary  must  be  capable  of 
judging  what  that  will  is,  and,  in  nations  with 
constitutions  like  our  own,  holding  the  legisla- 
ture down  to  an  interpretation  of  its  powers  in 
accordance  with  its  constitutional  rights.  Yet, 
when  all  has  been  said,  it  still  remains  true 
that  to  will  is  of  greater  importance  than  to  ex- 
ecute or  to  judge.  A  government  must  fail  that 
can  not  find  an  easy  and  adequate  expression 
for  its  will;  it  may  fail,  even  when  this  is  se- 
cured, if  the  other  departments  of  government 
are  incompetent  or  not  properly  organized.  If 
this  analysis  then  be  correct,  our  series  of 
studies  for  this  year,  concerned  as  it  is  with  the 
men  who  as  legislators  have  had  to  do  with 
the  will  of  the  nation,  with  its  most  important 
function,  becomes  of  the  highest  value.  There 
is  perhaps  one  time  in  a  nation's  history  when 
the  executive  surpasses  in  importance  even  the 
legislature,  and  that  is  in  time  of  war.  Of 
course,  then  it  is  the  force  of  the  nation  that 
must  be  wielded.  For  nations,  therefore, 
whose  life  has  been  m.irtial,  not  industrial,  the 
reverse  of  what  I  have  said  above  may  be  true. 
But  for  nations  like  our  own,  peaceful,  indus- 
trial, and  democratic,  the  important  field  of 
work  for  the  statesman  is  in  legislation,  in  find- 
ing out  and  properly  expressing  its  will.  In 
the  list  of  men  who  have  had  to  do  in  formu- 
lating this  will,  Clay  stands  second,  perhaps,  to 
none.  The  very  few  names  in  American  his- 
tory— Washing  ton's,  Hamilton's,  Jefferson's, 
Lin  oln's— that  tower  above  his,  were  great 
personalities   a<   well— were   administrators  in 


54  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

moments  of  great  need;  or  were  creators  of  great 
policies. 

Of  Clay's  writings  in  early  years  we  have 
almost  nothing  left.  It  is  not  till  he  becomes 
the  nation's  that  we  can  let  him  speak  of 
himself.  This  study,  therefore,  is  necessarily 
largely  a  direct  study  of  his  course  in  Congress, 
acting  for  the  people. 

In  1829  in  a  speech  to  his  constituents  Clay 
tells  us  something  of  himself,  and  gives  us  an 
insight  into  his  character  in  many  ways  when  he 
does  not  directly  speak  of  himself: 

I  fear,  friends  and  fellow-citizens,  that  if  I  could  find 
language  to  express  the  feelings  which  now  animate 
me,  I  could  not  be  heard  throughout  this  vast  assembly. 
My  voice,  once  strong  and  powerful,  has  had  its  vigor 
impaired  by  delicate  health  and  advancing  age  .  .  . 
I  behold  gathered  here,  sires  far  advanced  in  years,  en- 
deared to  me  by  an  interchange  of  friendly  office  and 
sympathetic  feeling,  beginning  more  than  thirty  years 
ago.  Their  sons,  grown  up  during  my  absence  in  the 
public  councils,  accompany  them;  and  all,  prompted 
by  ardent  attachment,  affectionately  surrounding  and 
saluting  me,  as  if  I  belonged  to  their  own  household. 
.  .  .  I  consider  this  day  the  proudest  of  my  life. 
*    *     *    # 

No  occasion  can  be  more  appropriate  than  the  present, 
when  surrounded  by  my  former  constituents,  to  say  a 
few  words  upon  the  unimportant  subject  of  myself. 
Prior  to  my  return  home  I  had  stated,  in  answer  to  all 
inquiries  whether  I  should  be  again  presented  as  a  can- 
didate to  represent  my  old  district  in  the  house  of  rep- 
resentatives, that  I  should  come  to  no  absolute  decision, 
until  I  had  taken  time  for  reflection,  and  to  ascertain 
what  might  be '  the  feelings  and  wishes  of  those  who 
had  so  often  honored  me  with  their  suffrages.  The 
present  representative  of  the  district  has  conducted 
himself  towards  me  with  the  greatest  liberality.  . 
.  He  had  promptly  declined  being  a  candidate,  if  1 
would  offer,  and  he  warmly  urged  me  to  offer.  Since 
my  return  home,  I  have  mixed  freely  as  1  could  with 


HENRY    CLAY.  55 

toy  fellow-citizens  of  the  district.  They  have  met  me 
with  the  greatest  cordiality.  Many  of  them  have  ex- 
pressed a  wish  that  I  would  again  represent  them. 
Some  of  the  most  prominent  and  respectable  of  those 
who  voted  for  the  present  chief  magistrate  [Jackson] 
have  also  expressed  a  similar  wish.  I  have  every 
reason  to  believe,  that  there  would  be  no  opposition  to 
me,  from  any  quarter  or  any  party,  if  I  were  to  offer 
But  .  .  .  under  all  circumstances,  I  think  that, 
.  I  may  continue  at  home  for  a  season,  if  not 
during  the  remainder  of  my  life,  among  my  friends 
and  old  constituents,  cheering  and  cheered  by  them, 
and  interchanging  all  the  kind  and  friendly  offices  in- 
cident to  private  life.     .     .     . 

And  now,  my  friends  and  fellow-citizens,  I  cannot 
part  from  you,  on  possibly  this  last  occasion  of  my  ever 
publicly  addressing  you,  without  reiterating  the  ex- 
pression of  my  thanks  from  a  heart  overflowing  with 
gratitude.  I  came  among  you,  now  more  than  thirty 
years  ago,  an  orphan  boy,  penniless,  stranger  to  you 
all,  without  friends,  without  the  favor  of  the  great. 
You  took  me  up,  cherished  me,  caressed  me,  protected 
me,  honored  me.  You  have  constantly  poured  upon 
me  a  bold  and  unabated  stream  of  innumerable  favors. 
Time,  which  wears  out  everything,  has  increased  and 
strengthened  your  affection  for  mo.  When  I  seemed 
deserted  by  almost  the  whole  world,  and  assailed  by 
almost  every  tongue,  and  pen,  and  press,  you  have  fear- 
lessly and  manfully  stood  by  me,  with  unsurpassed  zeal 
and  undiminished  friendship.  When  I  felt  as  if  I  should 
sink  beneath  the  storm  of  abuse  and  detraction,  which 
was  violently  raging  around  me,  I  have  found  myself 
upheld  and  sustained  by  your  encouraging  voices,  and 
your  approving  smiles.  I  have  doubtless  committed 
many  faults  and  indiscretions,  over  which  you  have 
thrown  the  broad  mantle  of  your  charity.  But  I  can 
say,  and  in  the  presence  of  my  God  and  this  assembled 
multitude,  I  will  say,  that  I  have  honestly  and  faith- 
fully served  my  country:  that  I  have  never  wronged  it; 
and  that,  however  unprepared  I  lament  that  I  am  to 
appear  in  the  Divine  presence  on  other  accounts,  1  in- 
voke the  stern  justice  of  His  judgment  on  my  public 
conduct,  without  the  smallest  apprehension  of  his  dis- 


56  AMERICAN    HISTORY   STUDIES. 

pleasure.— Cotton,  Life  and  Speeches  of  Clay,  Vol.  L,pp, 

568,  569,  582,  585. 

That  Clay  was  sensitive  to  public  criticism, 
in  his  early  years  at  least,  may  be  seen  in  this 
letter  from  Mr.  Brown,  his  brother-in-law.  of 
September  1,  1808: 

.  .  .  I  am  sorry  you  do  not  live  in  better  times, 
for  you  have  talents  to  adorn  a  public  station,  and  to 
be  useful  to  your  country.  But  to  me  character  is  more 
dear  than  every  other  thing;  and  can  any  man  hope  to 
preserve  it  in  the  present  miserable  state  of  things? 
You  have  carried  your  election.  I  am  rejoiced  at  it. 
Your  enemies  will  be  wounded.  But  I  pray  you  to  quit 
public  life,  or  muster  up  sufficient  philosophy  to  bear 
up  under  all  the  hard  names  with  which  you  will  be 
christened  in  the  papers.  You  are,  it  seems,  a  Burrite 
.  .  .  What  you  may  next  be  called  is  uncertain; 
but  as  long  as  you  retain  your  brains  and  your  inde- 
pendence you  will  be  abused.  Republicanism  demands 
that  a  man  of  talents  should  be  kept  down  by  detrac- 
tion. Too  much  genius,  like  too  much  wealth,  de- 
stroys equality,  the  very  soul  of  democracy.  But  I  for- 
bear. You  will  say  that  I  have  become  splenetic,  or 
rather  that  I  have  always  been  subject  to  that  infirm- 
ity.— Cotton,  Private  Correspondence  of  Clay,  p.  16. 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  earliest 
preserved  speech  of  Clay  made  in  Congress. 

...  In  inculcating  the  advantages  of  domestic 
manufactures,  it  never  entered  the  head,  I  presume,  of 
any  one,  to  change  the  habits  of  the  nation  from  an 
agricultural  to  a  manufacturing  community.  No  one, 
I  am  persuaded,  ever  thought  of  converting  the  plow- 
share and  the  sickle  into  the  spindle  and  the  shuttle. 

.  .  .  The  opponents  of  the  manufacturing  system 
transport  themselves  to  the  establishments  of  Manches- 
ter and  Birmingham,  and,  dwelling  on  the  indigence, 
vice,  and  wretchedness  prevailing  there,  by  pushing  it 
to  an  extreme,  argue  that  its  introduction  into  this 
country  will  necessarily  be  attended  by  the  same  mis- 
chievous and  dreadful  consequences.  But  what  is  the 
fact?    That  England  is   the  manufacturer  of  a  great 


HENRY    CLAY.  0  1 

part  of  the  world;  and  that,  even  then,  the  numbers 
thus  employed  bear  an  inconsiderable  proportion  to  the 
whole  mass  of  population.  Were  we  to  become  the 
manufacturers  of  other  nations,  effects  of  the  same  kind 
might  result.  But  if  we  limit  our  efforts,  by  our  own 
wants,  the  evils  apprehended  would  be  found  to  be 
chimerical.  The  invention  and  improvement  of  ma- 
chinery, .  .  .  dispensing  in  a  great  degree  with 
manual  labor;  and  the  employment  of  those  persons, 
who,  if  we  were  engaged  in  the  pursuit  of  agriculture 
alone,  would  be  either  unproductive,  or  exposed  to  in- 
dolence and  immorality,  will  enable  us  to  supply  our 
own  wants  without  withdrawing  our  attention  from 
agriculture— that  first  and  greatest  source  of  national 
wealth  and  happiness.  ...  It  is  certainly  desir- 
able, that  the  exports  of  the  country  should  continue 
to  be  the  surplus  production  of  tillage,  and  not  become 
those  of  manufacturing  establishments.  But  it  is  im- 
portant to  diminish  our  imports:  to  furnish  ourselves 
with  clothing,  made  by  our  own  industry;  and  to  cease 
to  be  dependent,  for  the  very  coats  we  wear,  upon  a 
foreign  and  perhaps  inimical  country.  The  nation  that 
imports  its  clothing  from  abroad  is  but  little  less  de- 
pendent than  if  it  imported  its  bread.  .  .  .  Gay's 
Speeches,  I.,  pp.  195, 196. 

Fourteen  years  later  Clay  made  his  first  really 
great  speech  on  the  tariff.  Webster  responded, 
and  the  two  speeches  may  be  regarded  as  class- 
ics on  the  subject,  Clay  had  not  been  silent  on 
the  topic  in  the  preceding  years,  but  none  of 
these  earlier  speeches  had  added  much  of  value 
to  the  discussion.     Now  in  1824  he  says: 

Two  classes  of  politicians  divide  the  people  of  the 
United  States.  According  to  the  system  of  one,  the 
produce  of  foreign  industry  should  be  subjected  to  no 
other  impost  than  such  as  may  be  necessary  to  provide 
-a  public  revenue;  .  .  .  According  to  the  system  of 
the  other  class,  whilst  they  agree  that  the  imposts 
should  be  mainly  .  .  .  relied  on  as  a  fit  and  con- 
venient source  of  public  revenue,  they  would  so  adjust 
and  arrange  the  duties  on  foreign  fabrics  as  to  afford  a 

5 


OS  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

gradual  but  adequate  protection  to  American  industry, 
and  lessen  our  dependence  on  foreign  nations,  by  secur- 
ing a  certain  and  ultimately  a  cheaper  and  better  sup- 
ply of  our  own  wants  from  our  own  abundant 
resources.  Both  classes  are  equally  sincere,  in  their 
respective  opinions,  equally  honest,  equally  patriotic, 
and  equally  desirous  of  advancing  the  prosperity  of 
the  country.     .     .     . 

In  casting  our  eyes  around  us,  the  most  prominent  cir- 
cumstance which  fixes  our  attention, and  challenges  our 
deepest  regret,  is  the  general  distress  which  pervades 
the  whole  country.  .  .  .  This  distress  pervades 
every  part  of  the  union,  every  class  of  society;  .  .  . 
what,  again  I  would  ask,  is  the  CAUSE  of  the  unhappy 
condition  of  our  country,  which  I  have  faintly  de. 
picted?  It  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that,  during  almost 
the  whole  existence  of  this  government,  we  have  shaped 
our  industry,  our  navigation,  and  our  commerce,  in 
reference  to  an  extraordinary  war  in  Europe,  and  to 
foreign  markets,  which  no  longer  exist;  in  the  fact  that 
we  have  depended  too  much  upon  foreign  sources  of 
supply,  and  excited  too  little  the  native:    .     .     . 

Both  the  inability  and  the  policy  of  foreign  powers, 
then,  forbid  us  to  rely  upon  the  foreign  market,  as  be- 
ing an  adequate  vent  for  the  surplus  produce  of  Amer- 
ican labor.     .     .     . 

Our  agriculture  is  our  greatest  interest.  It  ought  ever 
to  be  predominant.  All  others  should  bend  to  it.  .  .  . 
Can  we  do  nothing  to  invigorate  it;  nothing  to  correct 
the  errors  of  the  past,  and  to  brighten  the  still  more 
unpromising  prospects  which  lie  before  us?  .  .  .  We 
have  seen,  that  an  exclusive  dependence  on  the  foreign 
market  must  lead  to  still  severer  distress,  to  impover- 
ishment, to  ruin.  We  must  then  change  somewhat  our 
course.  We  must  give  a  new  direction  to  some  portion 
of  our  industry.  We  must  speedily  adopt  a  genuine 
American  policy.  Still  cherishing  the  foreign  market, 
let  us  create  also  a  home  market,  to  give  further  scope 
to  the  consumption  of  the  produce  of  American  indus- 
try.    .     .     . 

The  creation  of  a  home  market  is  not  only  necessary 
to  procure  for  our  agriculture  a  just  reward  of  its  labor, 
but  it  is  indispensable  to  obtain  a  supply  of  our  neces- 
sary wants.     If  we  cannot  sell,  we  cannot  buy.     .     .     . 


HENRY    CLAY.  59 

Mr.  Chairman,  our  confederacy  comprehends,  within  its 
vast  limits,  great  diversity  of  interests;  agriculture,  plant- 
ing, farming,  commercial,  navigating,  fishing,  manufac- 
turing. .  .  .  All  these  great  interests  are  confided  to 
the  protection  of  one  government  — to  the  fate  of  one  ship; 
.  .  .  If  we  prosper,  and  are  happy,  protection  must  be 
extended  to  all;  it  is  due  to  all.  .  .  .  [For  the  other 
side  read  Webster's  reply.] —  (  lay's  Speeches,  I, 

441,  442,  443,  440,  450,  478. 

Eight  years  now  pass  away  before  we  again 
notice  Clay's  position  on  the  tariff.  He  had 
made  many  speeches  in  the  meantime,  but  all 
were  in  harmony  with  the  one  quoted  for  1824. 
January  11,  1832,  he  moved  the  following  reso- 
lution, and  then  addressed  the  Senate  in  its  sup- 
port: 

Resolved,  that  the  existing  duties  upon  articles  imported 
from  foreign  countries,  and  not  coming  into  competition 
with  similar  articles  made  or  produced  within  the  United 
States,  ought  to  be  forthwith  abolished,  except  the  duties 
upon  wines  and  silks,  and  that  the  se  ought  to  be  reduced. 

He  then  says: 

It  forms  no  part  of  my  present  purpose  to  enter  into  a 
consideration  of  the  established  policy  of  protection.    .    .     . 

Although  it  may  be  impracticable  to  say  what  the  exact 
amount  of  the  public  revenue  should  be  for  the  future, 

we  may  safely  assume  that  the  revenue  may  now  be 
reduced,  and  considerably  reduced.  This  reduction  may 
be  effected  in  various  ways  and  on  different  principles. 
Only  three  modes  shall  now  be  noticed. 

First,  to  reduce  duties  on  all  articles  in  the  same  ratio, 
without  regard  to  the  principle  of  protection.  Second,  to 
retain  them  on  the  unprotected  articles,  and  augment  them 
on  the  protected  articles,  and,  Third,  to  abolish  and  reduce 
the  duties  on  unprotected  articles,  retaining  and  enforcing 
the  faithful  collection  of  those  on  the  protected  articles. 


00  American  history  studies. 

To  the  first  mole  there  are  insuperable  objections. 
Tt  would  leal  inevitably  to  the  destruction  of  our  home 
manufactures. 

The  second  would  be  still  more  objectionable  to  the 
fees  of  the  tariff  than  either  of  the  others. 
The  consequence  of  such  an  augmentation  would  be  a 
great  dimunition  in  the  importation  of  the  foregoing 
article,  and  of  course  of  the  duties  upon  it.  But  against 
entire  x>rohibition,  except  perhaps  in  a  few  instances,  I 
have  been  always  and  still  am  opposed.  By  leaving  the 
door  open  to  the  foreign  rival  article,  the  benefit  is  se- 
cured of  a  salutary  competition.  If  it  be  hermetically 
closed,  the  danger  is  incurred  of  monopoly. 

The  third  mode  is  the  most  equitable  and  reasonable. 
.  .  .  It  exacts  no  sacrifice  of  principle  from  the  op- 
ponents of  the  American  Systern,  it  comprehends  none 
on  the  part  of  its  friends.  .  .  .  Clay's  Speeches,  Vol. 
I,  pp.  614,  619,  620. 

These  resolutions  and  this  speech  brought 
forth  a  long  debate.  In  reply  to  General 
Hayne,  of  South  Carolina,  Clay  made  the 
longest  speech  of  his  life  on  the  tariff.  For 
three  days  he  discussed  the  question.  Of  course 
only  a  few  extracts  c  n  be  here  given: 

.  .  .  When  gentlemen  have  succeeded  in  their 
design  of  an  immediate  or  gradual  destruction  of  the 
American  system,  what  is  their  substitute?  Free 
trade?  Free  trade!  The  call  for  free  trade  is  as  una 
vailing,  as  the  cry  of  a  spoiled  child  in  its  nurse's  arms, 
for  the  moon,  or  the  stars  that  glitter  in  the  firmament 
of  heaven.  It  never  has  existed,  it  never  will  exist. 
Trade  implies  at  least  two  parties.  To  be  free,  it  should 
be  fair,  equal,  and  reciprocal.  But  if  we  throw  our 
ports  wide  open  to  the  admission  of  foreign  productions, 
free  of  all  duty,  what  ports  of  any  other  foreign  nations 
shall  we  find  open  to  the  free  admission  of  our  surplus 
produce  ?  We  may  break  down  all  barriers  to  free  trade 
on  our  part,  but  the  work  will  not  be  complete,  until 
foreign  powers  shall  have  removed  theirs.  There  would 
be  freedom  on  one  side,  and  restrictions,  prohibitions, 
and  exclusions  on  the  other.     The  bolts  and  the  bars 


'■?;---,--  / 


HENRY    CLAY.  61 

and    the    chains    of    all    other    nations    will    remain 
undisturbed.     .     .     . 

.  .  .  I  will  now,  Mr.  President,  proceed  to  a  more 
particular  consideration  of  the  arguments  urged  against 
the  protective  system,  .  .  .  It  is  alleged,  that  the 
system  operates  prejudicially  to  the  cotton  planter,  by 
diminishing  the  foreign  demand  for  this  staple;  that 
we  cannot  sell  to  Great  Britain  unless  we  buy  from  her; 
that  the  import  duty  is  equivalent  to  an  export  duty, 
and  falls  upon  the  cotton  grower;  that  South  Carolina 
pays  a  disproportionate  quota  of  the  public  revenue; 
that  an  abandonment  of  the  protective  policy  would 
lead  to  an  augmentation  of  our  exports;  of  an  amount 
not  less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  dollars; 
and  finally  that  the  South  cannot  partake  of  the  ad- 
vantages of  manufacturing,  if  there  be  any. 
I  conclude  this  part  of  the  argument  with  the  hope 
that  my  humble  exertions  have  not  been  altogether  un- 
successful in  showing, 

First,  That  the  policy  we  have  been  considering  ought 
to  continue  to  be  regarded  as  the  genuine  American 
system. 

Secondly,  That  the  free  trade  system,  which  is  pro- 
posed as  its  substitute,  ought  really  to  be  considered  as 
the  British  colonial  system. 

Thirdly,  That  the  American  system  is  beneficial  to  all 
parts  of  the  Union,  and  absolutely  necessary  to  much 
the  larger  portion. 

Fourthly,  that  the  price  of  the  great  staple  of  cotton, 
and  of  all  our  chief  productions  of  agriculture,  has  been 
sustained,  and  a  decline  averted,  by  the  protective 
system. 

Fifthly,  that  if  the  foreign  demand  for  cotton  has 
been  at  all  diminished,  .  .  .  the  diminution  has 
been  more  than  compensated,  in  the  additional  demand 
created  at  home. 

Sixthly,  That  the  constant  tendency  of  the  system,  by 
creating  competition  among  ourselves,  and  between 
American  and  European  industry,  ...  is  to  re- 
duce  prices  of  manufactured  objects. 

Eighthly,  That  if,  in  a  season  of  peace,  these  bene- 
fits  are  experienced,  in  a  season  of  war,  .  ,  .  they 
would  be  much  more  extensively  felt. 


62  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

Ninthly,  and  finally,  [its  abandonment]  would  lead 
to  the  prostration  of  our  manufactures,  general  im- 
poverishment, and  ultimate  ruin.  —  Clay's  Speeches,  Vol. 
II  pp.  17,  23,  45,  46. 

February  12,  1833,  Olay  argued  in  favor  of 
the  compromise  tariff  bill.     In  part  he  said: 

I  yesterday,  sir,  gave  notice  that  I  should  ask  leave 
to  introduce  a  bill  to  modify  the  various  acts  imposing 
duties  on  imports,  ...  I  am  anxious  to  find  out 
some  principle  of  mutual  accommodation,  to  satisfj7, 
as  far  as  practicable,  both  parties  ...  I  propose 
to  give  protection  to  our  manufactured  articles,  ade- 
quate protection  for  a  length  of  time,  .  .  .  and  on 
the  other,  proposing  to  reduce  the  duties  to  that 
revenue  standard,  for  whici  th?  opponents  of  the  sys- 
tem have  so  long  cob  kn,  ltd. 
*     *    *    * 

If  there  be  any  who  want  civil  war,  ...  I  am  not 
one  of  them.  I  wish  to  see  war  of  no  kind ;  but  above  all  I 
do  iiuo  desire  to  see  civil  war.  .  .  .  When  a  civil 
war  shall  be  lighted  up  in  the  bosom  of  our  own  happy 
land,  and  armies  are  marching,  and  commanders  are 
winning  their  victories,  and  fleets  are  in  motion  on  our 
coast,  tell  me,  if  you  can    .     .     .     its  duration. 

In  conclusion,  allow  me  to  entreat  and  implore  each 
individual  member  of  this  body  to  bring  into  the  con- 
sideration of  this  measure,  which  I  have  had  the  honor 
of  proposing,  felie  same  love  of  country,  which,  if  I 
know  myself,  has  actuated  me,  and  the  same  desire  of 
restoring  harmony  to  the  Union  which  has  prompted 
this  effort.  .  .  .  —Clay's  Speeches,  II,  pp.  107,  108, 
WO. 

Compare  this  with  the  above: 

The  foreign  policy  which  I  think  this  country  ought 
„o  adopt,  presents  one  of  those  exceptions.  It  would 
perhaps  be  better  for  mankind,  if,  in  the  intercourse 
between  nations,  all  would  leave  skill  and  industry  to 
their  unstimulated  exertions.  But  this  is  not  done; 
and  if  other  powers  will  incite  the  industry  of  their 
subjects,  and  depress  that  of  our  citizens,  in  instances 
where  they  may  come  into  competition,  we  must  imi- 


HENRY   CLAY.  63 

tate  their  selfish  example.  Hence  the  necessity  to  pro- 
tect our  manufacturers.—  Cljy's  Spe  dies,  Vol.  I,  p. 
318. 

The  second  speech  made  by  Clay  in  Congress, 
which  has  come  down  to  us,  argued  that  West 
Florida  was  a  part  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase. 
After  a  careful  historical  argument,  Clay  says: 

.  .  .  The  gentleman  conceives  it  ungenerous, 
that  we  should  at  this  moment,  when  Spain  is  encom- 
passed and  pressed  on  all  sides,  by  the  immense  power 
of  her  enemy,  occupy  West  Florida.  Shall  we  sit  by, 
passive  spectators,  and  witness  the  interesting  transac- 
tions of  that  country— transactions  which  tend,  in  the 
most  imminent  degree,  to  jeopardize  our  rights,  with- 
out attempting  to  interfere?  Are  you  prepared  to  see 
a  foreign  power  seize  what  belongs  to  us?  .  .  .  I 
have  no  hesitation  in  saying,  that  if  a  parent  country, 
will  not  or  cannot  maintain  its  authority,  in  a  colony 
adjacent  to  us,  and  there  exists  in  it  a  state  of  misrule 
and  disorder,  menacing  to  our  peace;  .  .  .  we  have 
a  right,  upon  the  eternal  principles  of  self-preservation, 
to  lay  hold  upon  it.  This  principle  alone,  independent 
of  any  title,  would  warrant  our  occupation  of  West 
Florida,  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  resort  to  it— our 
title  being,  in  my  judgment,  incontestably  good  .  . 
.  But  the  gentleman  reminds  us  that  Great  Britain, 
the  ally  of  Spain,  may  be  obliged,  by  her  connection 
with  that  country,  to  take  part  with  her  against  us, 
and  to  consider  this  measure  of  the  president  [taking 
possession  of  West  Florida]  as  justifying  an  appeal  to 
arms.  Sir,  is  the  time  never  to  arrive,  when  we  may 
arrange  our  own  affairs  without  the  fear  of  insulting 
his  Britannic  majesty?  Is  the  rod  of  British  power  to 
be  forever  suspended  over  our  heads?  .  .  .  Mr. 
President,  I  have  before  said  on  this  floor,  and  now 
take  occasion  to  remark,  that  I  mo3t  sincerely  desire 
peace  and  amity  with  England ;  that  I  ever  prefer  an 
adjustment  of  all  differences  with  her,  before  one  with 
any  other  nation.  But  if  she  persists  in  a  denial  of  jus- 
tice to  us,  or  if  she  avails  herself  of  the  occupation  of 
West  Florida,  to  commence  war  upon  us,  I  trust  and 
hope  that  all  hearts  will  unite,  in  a  bold  and  vigorous 
vindication  of  our  rights.     .     .     , 


64  AMERICAN    HISTORY   STUDIES. 

I  am  not,  sir,  in  .  favor  of  cherishing  the  passion  of 
conquest.  But  I  must  be  permitted,  in  conclusion,  to 
indulge  the  hope  of  seeing,  ere  long,  the  new  United 
States  (if  you  will  allow  me  the  expression)  embracing 
not  only  the  old  thirteen  states,  but  the  entire  country 
east  of  the  Mississippi,  including  East  Florida,  and 
some  of  the  territories  of  the  north  of  us  also.— Clay's 
Speeches,  Vol.  I,  p.  207,  208. 

A  year  later  Clay,  in  speaking  in  favor  of 
increasing  the  army,  showed  still  more  clearly 
what  he  conceived  the  United  States  should  do 
in  the  then  existing  foreign  conditions: 

What  are  we  to  gain  by  the  war?  has  been  emphat- 
ically asked.  In  reply,  he  would  ask,  what  are  we  not 
to  lose  by  peace?  Commerce,  character,  a  nation's 
best  treasure,  honor.     ... 

He  had  no  disposition  to  magnify  or  dwell  upon  the 
catalogue  of  injuries  we  had  received  from  England. 
He  could  not,  however,  overlook  the  impressment  of 
our  seamen— an  aggression  upon  which  he  never  re- 
flected, without  feelings  of  indignation.  .  .  .  Not 
content  with  seizing  upon  all  our  property  which  falls 
within  her  rapacious  grasp,  the  personal  rights  of  our 
countrymen— rights  which  forever  ought  to  be  sacred 
—are  trampled  upon  and  violated.     .  '  .     . 

He  contended,  that  the  real  cause  of  British  aggres- 
sion was,  not  to  distress  an  enemy,  but  to  destroy  a 
rival.  A  comparative  view  of  our  commerce  with  that 
of  England  and  the  continent,  would  satisfy  anyone  of 
the  truth  of  this  remark.  .  .  .  Clay's  Speeches,  Vol. 
I,  jyp-  226-228. 

Again  he  says: 

.  .  .  An  honorable  peace  is  attainable  only  by  an 
efficient  war.  My  plan  would  be,  to  call  out  the  ample 
resources  of  the  country,  give  then  a  judicious  direc- 
tion, prosecute  the  war  with  the  utmost  vigor,  strike 
wherever  we  can  reach  the  enemy,  at  sea  or  on  land, 
and  negotiate  the  terms  of  peace  at  Quebec  or  at  Hali- 
fax. We  are  told  that  England  is  a  proud  and  lofty 
nation,  which,  disdaining  to  wait  for  danger,  meets  it 
half  way.    Haughty  as  she  is,  we  once  triumphed  oyer 


HENRY   CLAY.  65 

her,  and.  if  we  do  not  listen  to  the  counsels  of  timidity 
and  despair,  we  shall  again  prevail.  In  such  a  cause 
with  the  aid  of  providence,  we  must  come  out  crowned 
with  success;  but  if  we  fail,  let  us  fail  like  men,  lash 
ourselves  to  our  gallant  tars,  and  expire  together  in 
one  common  struggle,  fighting  for  free  trade  and 
Seamen's  rights.  .  .  .  [Speech  on  the  Army 
Bill]-  Clay's  Speeches,  Vol  7,  i>.  $58. 

Clay  used  the  following  arguments,  in  1811, 
in  his  discussion  of  the  question  whether  the 
national  bank  should  be  rechartered: 

This  vagrant  power  to  erect  a  bank,  after  having 
wandered  throughout  the  whole  constitution  in  quest 
of  some  congenial   spot   to  fasten    upon,  has  been  at 
length  located  by  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  on  that 
provision  which  authorizes  congress  to  lay  and  collect 
taxes,  etc.     In  1791,  the  power  is  referred  to  one  part 
of  the  instrument;  in  1811  to  another.     Sometimes  it  is 
alleged  to  be  deducible   from   the  power  to  regulate 
commerce.     Hard  pressed  here,  it  disappears,  and  shows 
itself  under  the  grant  to  coin  money.     The  sagacious 
secretary  of  the  treasury  in  1791,  pursued  the  wisest 
course;     he   has   taken   shelter  behind    general    high 
sounding  and  imposing  terms.     He  has  declared  in  the 
preamble  to  the  act  establishing  the  bank,  that  it  will 
be  very  conducive  to  the  successful  conducting  of  the 
national   finances;    will   tend    to  give  facility   to  the 
obtaining  of  loans,  and  will  be  productive  of  consider- 
able advantage  to  trade  and  industry  in  general.     No 
allusion  is  made  to  the  collection  of  taxes.     What  is 
the   nature   of   this   government?     It  is  emphatically 
federal,  vested  with  an  aggregate  of  specified  powers 
for  general  purposes,  conceded  by  existing  sovereignties, 
who  have  themselves  retained  what  is  not  so  conceded.' 
It  is  said  that  there  are  cases  in  which  it  must  act  on 
implied  powers.     This  is  not  controverted,  but  the  im- 
plication must  be  necessary,  and  obviously  flow  from 
the  enumerated  power  with  which  it  is  allied.     The 
power   to   charter  companies   is  not  specified   in   the 
grant,  and  I  contend  is  of  a  nature  not  transferable  by 
meio  implication 

I  couceive,  then,  sir,  that  we  were  not  empowered  by 


66  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

the  constitution,  nor  bound   by  any  practice  under   it,  to 
renew  the  charter  of  this  bank,  and  I  might  here  rest  the 

argument [Speech  on  Bank  charter] — Clay's 

Speeches,  Vol.  I,  pp.  2  3,  220. 

In  1832,  his  feelings  towards  the  bank  may  be 
seen  in  this  quotation  : 

I  voted,  in  1811,  against  the  old  bank  of  the  United 
States,  and  I  delivered  on  that  occasion,  a  speech,  in  which, 
among  other  reasons  I  assigned  that  of  its  being  unconstitu- 
tional. My  speech  has  been  read  to  the  Senate,  during  the 
progress  of  this  bill,  but  the  reading  of  it  excited  no  other 
regret  than  that  it  was  read  in  such  a  wretched,  bungling, 
mangling  manner.  During  a  long  public  life,  (I  mention 
the  fact  not  as  claiming  any  merit  for  it,)  the  only  great 
question  in  which  I  have  ever  changed  my  opinion,  is  that 
of  the  bank  of  the  United  States.  If  the  researches  of  the 
Senator  had  carried  him  a  little  further,  he  would,  by  turn- 
ing over  a  few  more  leaves  of  the  same  book  from  which  he 
read  my  speech,  have  found  that  which  I  made  in  1816,  in 
support  of  the  present  bank.  By  the  reasons  assigned  in  it 
for  the  change  of  my  opinion,  I  am  ready  to  abide  in  the 
judgment  of  the  present  generation  and  of  posterity.  _  .  .  . 
— Clay's  Speeches,  Vol.  II,  p.  98. 

Study  the  following  extracts  to  find  Clay's 
views  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  State  and 
Union : 

.  .  .  Greatly  as  I  venerate  the  state  which  gave  me 
birth,  and  much  as  I  respect  the  judges  of  its  supreme  court, 
several  of  whom  are  my  personal  friends,  I  am  obliged  to 
think  that  some  of  the  doctrines  which  that  state  has  re- 
cently held  concerning  state  rights,  are  fraught  with  much 
danger.  If  those  doctrines  had  been  asserted  during  the 
late  war,  a  large  share' of  the  public  disapprobation  which 
has  been  given  to  Massachusetts  would  have  fallen  to  Vir- 
ginia. What  are  these  doctrines?  The  courts  of  Virginia 
assert,  that  they  have  a  right  to  determine  on  the  constitu- 
tionality of  any  law  or  treaty  of  the  United  States,  and  to 
expound  them  according  to  their  own  views,  even  if  they 


HENRY   CLAY.  07 

should  vary  from  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  court  of 
the  United  States.  They  assert  more  — that  from  their 
decision  there  can  be  no  appeal  to  the  supreme  court  of 
the  United  States;  that  there  exists  in  congress  no 
power  to  frame  a  law,  obliging  the  court  of  the  state, 
in  the  last  resort,  to  submit  its  decision  to  the  super- 
vision of  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States.  . 
.     .     Clay's  Speeches,  Vol  I,  p.  305. 

*  #    *    * 

In  cases  where  there  are  two  systems  of  government, 
operating  at  the  same  time  and  place,  over  the  same 
people,  the  one  general,  the  other  local  or  particular, 
one  system  or  the  other  must  possess  the  right  to  de- 
cide upon  the  extent  of  the  powers,  in  cases  of  collision, 
which  are  claimed  by  the  general  government.  No 
third  party  of  sufficient  impartiality,  weight  or  respon- 
sibility, other  than  such  a  tribunal  as  a  supreme  court, 
has  yet  been  devised,  or  perhaps  can  be  created.  The 
doctrine  of  one  side  is  that  the  general  government 
though  limited  in  its  nature,  must  necessarily  possess 
the  power  to  ascertain  what  authority  it  has,  and,  by 
consequence,  the  extent  of  that  authority. 

#  *    #    * 

The  South  Carolina  doctrine,  on  the  other  side,  is, 
that  that  state  has  the  right  to  determine  the  limits  of 
the  powers  granted  to  the  general  government;  and 
that  whenever  any  of  its  acts  transcend  those  limits, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  state  of  South  Carolina,  she  is 
competent  to  annul  them.  .  .  .  It  is  admitted  that 
the  South  Carolina  doctrine  is  liable  to  abuse;  but 
it  is  contended,  that  th3  patriotism  of  each  state  is 
an  adequate  security,  and  that  the  nullifying  power 
would  only  be  exercised,  '  in  an  extraordinary  case 
where  the  powers  reserved  to  the  states,  under  the  con- 
stitution, are  usurped  by  the  federal  government. 
And  is  not  the  patriotism  of  all  the  states,  as  great  a 
safeguard  against  the  assumption  of  powers,  not  con- 
ferred upon  the  general  government,  as  the  patriotism 
of  one  state  is  against  the  denial  of  powers  which  are 
clearly  granted.  .  .  .  [Speech  on  Nullification] 
Clay's  Speeches,  Vol.  I,  p.  601,  602. 

Spanish- American  relations: 
I  beg.  in  the  first  place,  to  correct  misconceptions,  if 


68  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

any  exist  in  regard  to  my  opinions.  I  am  averse  to 
war  with  Spain,  or  with  any  power.  I  would  give 
no  just  cause  of  war  to  any  power— not  to  Spain  herself. 
I  have  seen  enough  of  war,  and  of  its  calamities,  even 
when  successful.  No  country  upon  earth  has  more  in- 
terest than  this  in  cultivating  peace  and  avoiding  war, 
as  long  as  it  is  possible  honorably  to  avoid  it. 

Spain  has  undoubtedly  given  us  abundant  and  just 
cause  of  war.  But  it  is  not  every  cause  of  war  that 
should  lead  to  war.  War  is  one  of  those  dreadful 
scourges,  that  so  shakes  the  foundations  of  society, 
overturns  or  changes  the  character  df  governments,  in- 
terrupts or  destroys  the  pursuits  of  private  happiness, 
Tarings,  in  short,  misery  and  wretchedness  in  so  many 
forms,  and  at  last  is,  in  its  issue  so  doubtful  and  haz- 
ardous, that  nothing  but  dire  necessity  can  justify  an 
appeal  to  arms.  ...  I  am  no  propagandist.  I 
would  not  seek  to  force  upon  other  nations  our  princi- 
ples and  our  liberty,  if  they  do  not  want  them.  I 
would  not  disturb  the  repose  even  of  a  detestable  des- 
potism. But  if  an  abused  and  oppressed  people  will 
their  freedom;  if  they  seek  to  establish  it;  if,  in  truth 
they  have  established  it;  we  have  a  right  as  a  sover- 
eign power,  to  notice  the  fact,  and  to  act  as  circum- 
stances and  our  interests  require.  .  .  .  [Speech  on 
the  Emancipation  of  South  America]. — Clay's  Speeches, 
Vol.  I,  pp.  325,  326. 

Jackson's  actions  in  connection  with  the 
Seminole  War  bring  forth  the  following  cutting 
remarks  from  Clay: 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  may  tell  me  if 
he  chooses  what  he  pleases  about  the  tomahawk  and 
scalping  knife;  about  Indian  enormities,  and  foreign 
miscreants  and  incendiaries.  I,  too,  hate  them;  from 
my  very  soul  I  abominate  them.  But  I  love  my  coun- 
try and  its  constitution;  I  love  liberty  and  safety,  and 
fear  military  despotism  more,  even,  than  I  hate  these 
monsters. 

v         ^  *  T 

I  hope  not  to  be  misunderstood;  I  am  far  from  inti- 
mating that  General  Jackson  cherishes  any  designs  in- 
mical  to  the  liberties  of  the  country.     I  believe  his  in- 


HENKY   CLAY.  69 

teDtions  to  be  pure  and  patriotic.  I  thank  God  that  he 
would  not,  but  I  thank  him  still  more  that  he  could 
not  if  he  would,  overrun  the  liberties  of  the  republic. 
But  precedents,  if  bad,  are  fraught  with  the  most 
dangerous  consequences.  ...  To  you  Mr.  Chair- 
mr-n,  belongs  the  high  privilege  of  transmitting,  un- 
impaired, to  posterity,  the  fair  character  and  liberty 
of  our  country.  Do  you  expect  to  execute  this  high 
trust,  by  trampling,  or  suffering  to  be  trampled  down, 
law,  justice,  the  constitution,  and  the  rights  of  the 
people?  by  exhibiting  examples  of  inhumanity,  and 
cruelty  and  ambition?  .  .  .  I  am  not  disposed  to 
censure  the  President  for  not  ordering  a  court  of  in- 
quiry, or  a  general  court  martial.  Perhaps,  impelled 
by  a  sense  of  gratitude,  he  determined,  by  anticipa- 
tion, to  extend  to  the  general  that  pardon  which  he  had 
the  undoubted  right  to  grant  after  sentence.  Let  us 
not  shrink  from  our  duty.  Let  us  assert  our  constitu- 
tional powers,  and  vindicate  the  instrument  from  mili- 
tary violation.  [Speech  on  the  Seminole  War].— Clay's 
Speeches,  Vol.  I,  p.  389. 

Clay  breaks  forth  in  these  impassioned  words 
in  his  speech  on  the  Greek  Revolution: 

Are  we  so  humble,  so  low,  so  debased,  that,  we  dare 
not  express  our  sympathy  for  suffering  Greece;  that  we 
dare  not  articulate  our  detestation  of  the  brutal  ex- 
cesses of  which  she  has  been  the  bleeding  victim,  lest 
we  might  offend  some  one  or  more  of  their  imperial 
and  royal  majesties?  .  .  .  Are  we  so  mean,  so  base, 
so  despicable,  that  we  may  not  attempt  to  express  our 
horror,  utter  our  indignation,  at  the  most  brutal  and 
atrocious  war  that  ever  stained  earth  or  shocked  high 
heaven?  at  the  ferocious  deeds  of  a  savage  and  infuri- 
ated soldiery,  stimulated  and  urged  on  by  the  clergy  of 
a  fanatical  and  inimical  religion,  and  rioting  in  all  the 
excesses  of  blood  and  butchery,  at  the  mere  details  of 
which  the  heart  sickens  and  recoils?  .  .  .  [Speech 
on  the  Greek  Revolution] — Clay's  Speeches,  Vol.  I,  p. 
437. 

These  extracts  give  us  an  insight  into  Clay's 
ideas  concerning  the  negro,  and  what  could  be 
done  for  him: 


70  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

The  object  of  the  society  was  the  colonization  of  the 
free  colored  people,  not  the  slaves  of  the  country.     .     . 

Numbers  of  the  free  African  race  among  us  are  will- 
ing to  go  to  Africa.  The  society  has  never  experienced 
any  difficulty  on  that  subject  except  that  its  means  of 
comfortable  transportation  have  been  inadequate  to 
accommodate  all  who  have  been  anxious  to  migrate. 
Why  should  they  not  go?  Here  they  are  in  the  lowest 
stage  of  social  gradation;  aliens,  political,  moral,  and 
social  aliens — strangers  though  natives.  There  they 
would  be  in  the  midst  of  their  friends  and  their  kin- 
dred, at  home,  though  born  in  a  foreign  land,  and  ele- 
vated above  the  natives  of  the  country,  as  much  as 
they  are  degraded  here  below  the  other  classes  of  the 
community.     .     .     . 

#  *    *    * 

The  colonization  society  has  never  imagined  it  to  be 
practicable,  or  within  the  reach  of  any  means  which 
the  several  governments  of  the  union  could  bring  to 
bear  on  the  subject,  to  transport  the  whole  of  the  Afri- 
can race  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States. 

*  *    *    * 

This  society  is  well  aware,  I  repeat,  that  they  can 
not  touch  the  subject  of  slavery.  ...  Of  all  de- 
scriptions of  our  population,  that  of  the  free  colored, 
taken  in  the  aggregate,  is  the  least  prolific,  because  of 
the  checks  arising  from  vice  and  want.  ...  If  I 
could  be  instrumental  in  eradicating  the  deepest  stain 
uyon  the  character  of  the  country,  and  removing  all 
cause  of  reproach  on  account  of  it,  by  foreign  nations ; 
if  I  could  only  be  instrumental  in  ridding  of  this  foul 
blot  that  revered  state  that  gave  me  birth,  or  that  not 
less  beloved  state  which  kindly  adopted  me  as  her  son; 
I  would  not  exchange  the  proud  satisfaction  which  I 
should  enjoy,  for  the  honor  of  all  the  triumphs  ever  de- 
creed to  the  most  successful  conqueror.  .  ,  There 
is  a  moral  fitness  in  the  idea  of  returning  to  Africa  her 
children,  whose  ancestors  have  been  torn  from  her  by 
the  ruthless  hand  of  fraud  and  violence.  Transplanted 
in  a  foreign  land,  they  will  carry  back  to  their  native 
soil  the  rich  fruits  of  religion,  civilization,  law,  and  lib- 
erty.    ,         .     Of  all  classes  of  our  population,   the 


HENRY   CLAY.  ?1 

most  vicious  is  that  of  the  free  colored.  It  is  the  inev- 
itable result  of  their  moral,  political,  and  civil  degra- 
dation. Contaminated  themselves,  they  extend  their 
vices  to  all  around  them,  to  the  slaves  and  to  the 
whites.  If  the  principle  of  colonization  should  be  con- 
fined to  them;  if  a  colony  can  b9  firmly  established  and 
successfully  continued  in  Africa  which  should  draw  off 
annually  an  amount  of  that  portion  of  our  population 
equal  to  its  annual  increase,  much  good  will  be  done. 
.  .  .  Every  emigrant  to  Africa  is  a  missionary  car- 
rying with  him  credentials  in  the  holy  cause  of  civili- 
zation, religion,  and  free  institutions. 

We  are  reproached  with  doing  mischief  by  the  agita- 
tion of  this  question.  The  society  goes  into  no  house- 
hold to  disturb  its  domestic  tranquility;  it  addresses 
itself  to  no  slaves  to  weaken  their  obligations  of  obe- 
dience. It  seeks  to  effect  no  man's  property.  It  has 
neither  the  power  nor  the  will  to  effect  the  property  of 
any  one  contrary  to  his  consent.  The  execution  of  its 
scheme  would  augment  instead  of  diminishing  the 
value  of  the  property  left  behind.  [On  African  Colon- 
ization].— Clays  Speeches,  Vol  I,  pp.  5  IS,  519,  520,  523, 
515,  526,  5J7. 

Clay  on  the  abolitionists: 

There  are  three  classes  of  persons  opposed,  or  appar- 
ently opposed  to  the  continued  existence  of  slavery  in 
the  United  States.  .  .  .  And  the  third  class  are 
the  real  ultra  abolitionists,  who  are  resolved  to  persevere 
in  the  pursuit  of  their  object  at  all  hazards,  and  with- 
out regard  to  any  consequences,  however  calamitous 
they  may  be.  With  them  the  rights  of  property  are 
nothing;  the  deficiency  of  the  powers  of  the  general 
government  are  nothing;  the  acknowledged  and  incon- 
testable powers  of  the  states  are  nothing;  civil  war,  a 
dissolution  of  the  union,  and  the  overthrow  of  a  gov- 
ernment in  which  are  concentrated  the  fondest  hopes 
of  the  civilized  world,  are  nothing. 
*     *     *     * 

The  next  obstacle  in  the  way  of  abolition,  arises  out 
of  the  fact  of  the  presence  in  the  slave  states  of  three 
millions  of  slaves.  They  are  there,  dispersed  through- 
out the  land,  part  and  parcel  of  our  population.     They 


72  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

were  brought  in  to  the  country  originally  under  the  au- 
thority of  the  parent  government,  whilst  we  were  col- 
onies, and  their  importation  was  continued,  in  spite  of 
all  the  remonstrances  of  our  ancestors.  If  the  question 
were  an  original  question,  whether,  there  being  no 
slaves  in  the  country,  we  should  introduce  them,  and 
incorporate  them  into  our  society,  that  would  be  a  to- 
tally different  question.  Few,  if  any,  of  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States  would  be  found  to  favor  their  intro- 
duction. No  man  in  it  would  oppose,  upon  that  sup- 
position, their  admission  with  more  determined  resolu- 
tion and  conscientious  repugnance  than  I  should.  .  .  . 
What  is  best  to  be  done  for  their  happiness  and  our 
own?  In  the  slave  states  the  alternative  is.  that  the 
white  man  must  govern  the  black,  or  the  black  govern 
the  white.  .  .  .  [Abolition  Petitions].— Clay's 
Speeches,  Vol.  II,  pp.  357,  3G7. 

The  relations  that  existed  between  Clay  and 
President  Jackson  are  well  set  forth  in  the 
following  extracts: 

We  are  in  the  midst  of  a  revolution,  hitherto  blood- 
less, but  rapidly  tending  towards  a  total  change  of  the 
pure  republican  character  of  the  government,  and  to 
the  concentration  of  all  power  in  the  hands  of  one  man. 
The  powers  of  congress  are  paralyzed,  except  when  ex- 
erted in  conformity  with  his  will,  by  a  frequent  and  an 
extraordinary  exercise  of  the  executive  veto,  not  an- 
ticipated by  the  founders  of  our  constitution,  and  not 
practised  by  any  of  the  predecessors  of  the  present 
chief  magistrate.— [  On  the  removal  of  the  deposits  ]. 
#     *    *    * 

The  constitutional  participation  of  the  senate  in  the 
appointing  power  is  virtually  abolished  by  the  constant 
use  of  the  power  of  removal  from  office,  without  any 
known  cause,  and  by  the  appointment  of  the  same  in- 
dividual to  the  same  office,  after  his  rejection  by  the 
senate.  .  .  .  The  judiciary  has  not  been  exempt 
from  the  prevailing  rage  for  innovation.  Decisions  of 
the  tribunals,  deliberately  pronounced  have  been  con- 
temptuously disregarded.  .  .  .  By  the  third  of 
March,  ts:}7,  if  the  progress  o?  the  innovation  continues, 
there  will  be  scarcely  a  vesfcage  of  the  government  re- 


HENRY   CLAY.  73 

maining  and  its  policy,  as  they  existed  prior  to  the 
third  of  March  1829.  In  a  term  of  eight  years,  a  little 
more  than  equal  to  that  which  was  required  to  estab- 
lish our  liberties,  the  government  will  have  been  trans- 
formed into  an  elective  monarchy— the  worst  of  all 
forms  of  governments.  ...  [On  the  removal  of 
the  deposits  j. 
*    #    *    * 

For  more  than  fifteen  years,  Mr.  President,  I  have 
been  struggling  to  avoid  the  present  state  of  things. 
I  thought  I  perceived  in  some  proceedings,  during  the 
conduct  of  the  Seminole  war,  a  spirit  of  defiance  to  the 
constitution  and  to  the  law.  With  what  sincerity  and 
truth,  with  what  earnestness  and  devotion  to  civil 
liberty,  I  have  struggled,  the  searcher  of  all  human 
hearts  best  knows.  With  what  fortune  the  bleeding- 
constitution  of  my  country  fatally  attests.  [On  the 
removal  of  the  deposits].— Clay's  Speeches,  Vol  VI 
pp.  145,  146,  164. 

Clay  supposed  seemingly  in  1842  when  he 
delivered  his  Farewell  Address  to  the  Senate 
that  he  was  leaving  its  halls  forever.  Instead 
he  returned  again  in  1849,  and  made  some  of 
his  most  famous  speeches  in  favor  of  the  Com- 
promise of  1850.  Space,  however,  forbids  any 
further  extracts. 

In  retiring,  as  I  am  about  to  do,  forever,  from  the 
senate,  suffer  me  to  express  my  heartfelt  wishes  that  all 
the  great  and  patriotic  objects  of  the  wise  framers  of 
our  constitution  may  be  fulfilled.     That  the  high  des- 
tiny designed  for  it  may  be  fully  answered;    and  that 
its  deliberations,  now  and  hereafter,  may  eventuate  in 
s  curing    the   prosperity  of  our  beloved   country,    in 
maintaining  its  rights  and  honors  abroad,  and  uphold- 
in-  its  interests  at  home.     I  retire,  I  know,  at  a  period 
of  infinite  distress  and  embarrassment.     I  wish  I  could 
take  my  leave  of  you  under  more  favorable  auspices; 
but,  without  meaning  at  this  time  to  say  whether  on 
any  or  on  whom  reproaches  for  the  sad  condition  of  the 
country  should  fall,  I  appeal  to  the  senate  and  to  the 
world  to  bear  testimony  to  my  earnest  and  continued 

6 


7±  AMERICAN   HtSTORY   STUDIES. 

exertions  to  avert  it,  and  to  the  truth  that  no  blame 
can  justly  attach  to  me.  [  Valedictory  address  to  the 
senate  ].  — Clay's  Speeches,  Vol.  XI,  p.  568. 

QUESTIONS 

1.  What  was  the  character  of  Clay's  oratory?  (2) 
Point  out  some  of  the  reasons  that  gave  him  a  strong 
hold  on  the  people.  (3)  Do  you  see  any  traces  of 
egotism?  (4)  From  what  class  did  Clay  come?  (5) 
How  had  the  people  of  Kentucky  treated  him?  (6) 
Could  Clay  bear  criticism  unaffectedly?  (7)  What 
question  earliest  aroused  Clay's  interest?  (8)  Outline 
the  arguments  he  used  in  favor  of  protection.  (9) 
What  did  he  name  the  system?  (10)  Was  the  name  he 
chose  a  good  political  stroke?  (11)  How  did  his  argu- 
ments differ  from  those  now  used?  (12)  Were  his  ar- 
guments all  logical?  (13)  Were  they  all  consistent 
with  each  other? 

(1)  Trace  Clay's  position  in  regard  to  a  national 
bank.  (2)  What  theory  of  the  Constitution  in  his  first 
bank  speech?  (3)  Compare  it  with  the  theory  found  in 
his  speech  on  nullification. 

(1)  What  position  did  Clay  take  in  regard  to  acquisi- 
tion of  territory?  (2)  Would  he  now,  judged  by  these 
speeches,  be  for  or  against  annexation  of  Cuba,  for  ex- 
ample? (3)  What  were  his  feelings  in  regard  to  war? 
(4)  Was  he  entirely  consistent?  (5)  How  did  he  feel  in 
regard  to  the  war  of  1812?  (6)  Who  decide  on  the  con- 
stitutionality of  laws?  (7)  What  claim  did  Virginia 
make  in  regard  to  such  a  decision?  (8)  What  view  did 
Clay  hold?  (9)  What  names  in  history  are  the  two 
views-  known  by?  (10)  How  did  he  argue  on  the 
South  Carolina  position  ? 

(1)  Show  what  Clay's  feelings  were  toward  Jackson. 
(2)  Can  you  explain  his  bitter  tone?  (3)  Have  his  pre- 
dictions been  in  any  way  fulfilled?  (4)  May  they  yet 
be  fulfilled? 

(1)  Was  Clay  a  lover  of  popular  liberty?  (2)  Bring 
together  as  many  extracts  to  prove  your  answer  as  you 
can.  (3)  For  what  purpose  does  he  say  the  coloniza- 
tion society  was  formed?  (4)  What  did  he  assert  was 
the  character  of  the  free  negroes?  (5)  Why  did  he 
claim  they  ought  to  be  sent  back  to  Africa?  (6)  Are 
his  two  assertions  consistent?  (7)  Why  does  he  wish 
the  free  negroes  removed?  (8)  Were  his  remarks  in 
regard  to  the  negroes  consistent  with  his  speech  on 
Greek  liberty?  (9)  Did  Clay  desire  emancipation  of 
the  slaves? 

(1)  Judged  by  these  extracts  do  you  consider  Clay  a 
deep  thinker  or  not?  (2)  Write  a  life  of  Clay  from 
these  extracts. 


DANIEL  WEBSTER 


Born  in  New  Hampshire,  1782.  Member  of 
House  of  Representatives,  1813-1817,  1823-1827. 
Senator,  1827-1841,  1845-1850.  Candidate  for 
President,  1836.  Secretary  of  state,  1841-1S43, 
1850-1852.  Debate  with  Clay  on  tariff,  1824. 
Webster-Hayne  debate,  1830.  Webster-Cal- 
houn debate,  1833.  Great  "  Seventh  of  March" 
speech,  1850.    Died,  1852. 


CHAPTER  IV 
DANIEL  WEBSTER 

f"^HE  names  of  Clay  and  Webster  are  so  in- 
timately associated  in  American  history 
that  one  name  is  rarely  mentioned  un- 
less it  is  accompanied  by  the  other.  A  third 
name  is  usually  joined  with  theirs;  in  many  ways 
the  antithesis  of  both.  It  is  fitting,  therefore, 
that  this  study,  following  the  one  on  Clay 
should  deal  with  Webster.  It  will  be  no  less 
proper  that  Calhoun  should  come  before  us  for 
cur  next  study. 

Webster  was  five  years  the  junior  of  Clay. 
Born  on  a  farm  in  New  Hampshire,  his  early 
years  were  scarcely  more  favorable  than  Clay's. 
However,  he  had  a  father  who  was  ready  to 
sacrifice  for  him,  so  he  was  able  to  obtain  a  col- 
lege education,  graduating  at  Dartmouth  in 
1S00  (?)  the  recognized  leader  in  composition 
and  public  speaking  of  his  class. 

As  in  the  case  of  Clay,  the  mass  of  material 
from  which  to  select  in  his  manhood  years  is  so 
rich  that  its  wealth  overwhelms  one  when  he 
attempts  to  choose.  There  are  also  quite  a 
large  number  of  youthful  letters  accessible,  so 
it  would  be  possible  to  let  Webster  tell  the 
story  of  his  own  life  from  an  early  time;  but 
as  it  could  only  be  done  by  the  omission  of 
more  interesting,  or,  at  least,  more  important, 
matter  from  his  public  life,  it  has  been  thought 
best  to  incorporate  but  few  extracts  here. 


DANIEL  WEBSTER.  77 

PART  I 

EXTRACTS   MADE  FROM   WEBSTER'S  PRIVATE  CORRE- 
SPONDENCE, EDITION  1857,  COMPILED  BY  HIS 
SON,  FLETCHER  WEBSTER 

I  believe  I  made  tolerable  progress  in  most  branches 
which  I  attended  to,  while  in  this  school;  but  there 
was  one  thin-  I  could  not  do.  I  could  not  make  a  de- 
clamation. I  could  not  speak  before  the  school.  The 
kind  and  excellent  Buckminster  sought,  especially,  to 
persuade  me  to  perform  the  exercise  of  declamation, 
like  other  boys;  but  I  could  not  do  it.— Autobiography.  ' 

With  respect   to   Daniel  Webster's  college  life,  his 
habits  of  study  were  good.     He  was  a  strict  observer  of 
order.     His  mind  was  too  dignified  to  do  otherwise.     He 
never  engaged  in  college  disturbances.— .Rev.  E.  Smith 
1852. 

"Ay,"  said  he,  "but  the  opinion  of  my  scholarship 
was  a  mistaken  one.  It  was  overestimated.  I  will  ex- 
,  plain  what  I  mean.  Many  other  students  read  more 
than  I  did  and  knew  more  than  I  did.  But  so  much  as 
I  read,  I  made  my  own.  When  a  half  hour  or  an  hour 
had  elapsed,  I  closed  my  book  and  thought  over  what 
I  had  read.  If  there  was  anything  peculiarly  interest- 
ing or  striking  in  the  passage,  I  endeavored  to  recall  it 
and  lay  it  up  in  my  memory,  and  commonly  effected 
my  object.  — Letter  of  McGaw,  1852. 

Webster  was  never  an  idle  student,  as  some  persons 
falsely  and  erroneously  believe.  I  have  often  been 
questioned  on  that  subject,  and  have  always  taken 
upon  myself  the  pleasing  task  of  promptly  denying  the 
charge  and  correcting  the  mistake.—  Letter  of  Mr 
HotchJciss,  1852. 

[1800J  I  have  read  Robertson,  Vattel,  and  three 
volumes  of  Blackstone,  and  a  little  miscellaneous  stuff 
of  no  account.  I  hope  to  go  on  more  rapidly  now,  for 
I  feel  more  at  ease  than  I  have  done  heretofore. 

[1802]  I  have  now  by  me  two  cents  in  lawful  federal 
currency;  next  week  I  will  send  them,  if  they  be  all; 
they  will  buy  a  pipe;  with  a  pipe  you  can  smoke,  smok- 
ing inspires  wisdom;  wisdom  is  allied  to  fortitude; 
from  fortitude  it  is  but  one  step  to  stoicism;  and  stoi- 


78  AMERICAN    HISTORY   STUDIES. 

cism  never  pants  for  this  world's  goods;  so  perhaps  my 
two  cents,  by  this  process,  may  put  you  quite  at  ease 
about  cash.  Write  ma  this  minute,  if  you  can;  tell  me 
all  your  necessities;  no,  not  all,  a  part  only,  and  any- 
thing else  you  can  think  of  to  amuse  me. 

[1803]  A  man  can  never  gallop  over  the  fields  of 
law  on  Pegasus,  nor  fly  across  them  on  the  wing  of 
oratory.  If  he  would  stand  on  terra  firnia  he  must  de- 
sccni;  if  he  would  be  a  great  lawyer,  he  must  first  con- 
sent to  be  only  a  great  drudge. 

[1804]  The  contagion  of  democracy  will  prevade 
every  place  and  corrupt  every  generous  and  manly  sen- 
timent. It  cannot  be  successfully  resisted.  The  pes- 
tilence will  spread  in  a  favorable  state  of  the  atmos- 
phere, notwithstanding  all  the  medical  exertions  of  the 
most  skillful  physicians. 

[1804]  It  were  much  easier  for  me  to  form  connec- 
tions than  to  support  them.  There  are  many  young 
men  of  my  own  age  with  whom  it  would  be  easy  to  as- 
sociate; but  a  young  man  who  has  a  fortune  to  spend, 
is  not  a  proper  companion  for  another  who  has  a  for- 
tune to  make. 

[1813]  We  shall  probably  get  up  some  resolutions, 
directly  attacking  the  war.  If  so,  I  suppose  I  shal] 
shoot  my  little  gun.  We  have  some  fine  fellows  on  oui 
side  of  the  House. 

[1816]  The  events  of  the  times,  the  policy  of  Eng- 
land, the  consequences  of  our  war,  and  the  Ghent 
Treaty,  have  bereft  us  of  our  commerce,  the  great 
source  of  our  wealth.  If  any  great  scenes  are  to  be 
acted  in  this  country  within  the  next  twenty  years, 
New  York  is  the  place  in  which  those  scenes  are  to 
be  viewed.     More  of  this  hereafter. 

[1823]  Dear  Daniel, — I  received  yours  this  morn- 
ing. Of  all  the  candidates  named  for  the  Presidency, 
the  people  of  New  Hampshire  would  undoubtedly  pre- 
fer Mr.  Adams.  Mr.  Adams  being  out  of  the  question, 
I  think  Mr.  Calhoun  would  be  their  choice.  I  think 
neither  Jackson,  Crawford,  nor  Clay  could  ever  ob- 
tain the  votes  of  this  state.—  [N.  H.] 

[1823]  Many  of  the  Federalists  in  the  western  dis- 
trict, it  is  supposed,  favor  Mr.  Adams;  otherwise,  in  the 
city  and  its  neighborhood. 


DANIEL  WEBSTER.  79 

[1824]  I  hope  all  New  England  will  support  Mr. 
Calhoun  for  the  Vice-Presidency.  If  so,  he  will  prob- 
ably be  chosen,  and  that  will  be  a  great  thing.  He  is  a 
true  man,  and  will  do  good  to  the  country  in  that 
situation. 

[1824]  The  tariff  will  not  pass  the  Senate  without 
great  amendment. 

We  have  struck  a  mortal  blow  on  the  tariff  principle. 
If  it  were  not  for  instruction  and  other  nonsense,  two- 
th'rds  nearly  of  our  House  would  be  against  it. 

[1829]  General  Jackson  will  be  here  about  loth  Feb- 
ruary.    .     .     . 

My  opinion  is,  that  when  he  comes  he  will  bring  a 
breeze  with  him.    Which  way  it  will  blow  I  cannot  tell. 

[1832]  Mr.  Calhoun,  as  you  are  doubtless  aware,  has 
published  a  labored  defence  of  nullification,  in  the  form 
of  a  letter,  to  Governor  Hamilton.  It  is  far  the  ablest 
and  most  plausible,  and  therefore  the  most  dangerous 
vindication  of  that  particular  form  of  revolution,  which 
has  yet  appeared. 

In  the  silence  of  abler  pens,  and  seeing  as  I  think  I 
do,  that  the  affairs  of  this  government  are  rapidly  ap- 
proaching a  crisis,  I  have  felt  it  to  be  my  duty  to  an- 
swer Mr.  Calhoun. 

[1835]  You  express  a  wish,  however,  that  for  the 
satisfaction  of  friends  in  other  parts  of  the  state,  I 
should  enable  you  to  make  known  my  sentiments 
respecting  the  order  of  Free  masonrj7.  I  have  no  hesita- 
tion, gentlemen,  in  saying  that,  however  unobjection- 
able may  have  been  the  original  objects  of  the  institu- 
tion, or  however  pure  may  be  the  motives  and  purposes 
of  individual  members,  and  notwithstanding  the  many 
great  and  good  men  who  have  from  time  to  time  be- 
longed to  the  order,  yet,  nevertheless,  it  is  an  institu- 
tion, which,  in  my  judgment,  is  essentially  wrong  in  the 
principal  of  its  formation;  that,  from  its  very  nature, 
it  is  liable  to  great  abuses;  that  among  the  obligations 
which  are  found  to  be  imposed  on  its  members,  there 
arc  such  as  are  entirely  incompatible  with  the  duty  of 
good  citizens;  and  that  all  secret  associations,  the  mem- 
bers of  which  take  up  m  themselves  extraordinary  obli- 
gations to  one  another,  and  are  bound  together  by  secret 


80  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

oaths,  are,  naturally,  sources  of  jealousy  and  just  alarm 
to  others;  are  especially  unfavorable  to  harmony  and 
mutual  confidence  among  men,  living  together  under 
popular  institutions;  and  are  dangerous  to  the  general 
cause  of  civil  liberty  and  good  government.  Under  the 
influence  of  this  conviction,  I  heartily  approved  the 
law,  lately  enacted  in  the  State  of  which  I  am  a  citi 
zen,  for  abolishing  all  such  oaths  and  obligations 

[1838]  I  entertain  no  doubt  whatever  that  Congresi 
have  full  authority  to  regulate  slavery  within  the  saic 
District,  or  abolish  it  altogether;     .     .     . 

More  than  all,  it  is  my  opinion,  "  that  the  citizens  oi 
the  United  States  have  an  unquestionable  constitu- 
tional right  to  petition  Congress  for  the  restraint  01 
abolition  of  slavery  and  the  slave  trade  within  the  said 
District;     .     .     . 

[1840]  I  see,  too,  that  the  money  crisis  is  not  over  in 
England.  Our  concerns  are  indeed  much  connected, 
an "!  the  same  causes  affect  them  all.  I  am  coming  tc 
the  opinion  fast,  that  new  mode3  of  regulation  must  be 
adopted  in  both  countries,  or  else  the  frequent  con- 
traction and  expansion  of  the  paper  circulation  will 
compel  us  to  give  it  up,  and  go  back  to  gold  or  iron,  or 
the  Lord  knows  what. 

[1840]  The  question  of  accepting  a  seat  in  youi 
cabin  et,  should  it  be  tendered  to  me,  has  naturally 
been  the  subject  of  my  reflections  and  consultation 
wi  th  friends.  The  result  of  these  reflections  and  con- 
sultations has  been  that  I  should  accept  the  office  of  the 
Secretary  of  State,  should  it  be  offered  to  me,  under 
circumstances  such  as  now  exist. 

[184.1]  The  Senate  yesterday  engrossed  a  bill  for  a 
bank  Its  shape  is  the  result  of  many  compromises, 
but  it  may  still  be  doubtful  whether  it  will  become  a 
law.  Probably  it  may  pass  both  Houses,  but  whether 
the  President  will  approve  it,  is  a  question  which  I 
hardly  dare  ask  myself.  If  he  should  not,  I  know  not 
what  will  become  of  our  administration. 

[1842]  Of  one  thing  I  am  glad,  and  that  is,  that  I 
am  out  of  Congress.  I  liked  Congress  very  much, 
formerly;  very  much;  but  men  and  things,  habits, 
tempers,  principles,  all  have  changed.  My  present 
situation  would  be  pleasant  enough,  if  all  things  were 
right.     But  I  do  not  mean  to  turn  grumbler. 


DANIEL  WEBSTEft.  81 

[1844]  I  maintained  in  that  speech  that  duties  could 
not  be  laid  by  treaty,  because  the  imposition  of  duties 
appropriately  belongs  to  Congress,  and  especially  to 
the  House  of  Representatives,  and  I  now  maintain  that 
the  two  Houses  cannot  by  majority  ratify  treaties,  be- 
cause the  treaty-making  power  belongs  exclusively  to 
the  President  and  Senate. 

[1845]  While  we  feel  as  we  ought  about  the  annexa- 
tion of  Texas,  we  ought  to  keep  in  view  the  true  grounds 
of  objection  to  that  measure.  Those  grounds  are,  want 
of  constitutional  power,  danger  of  too  great  an  extent 
of  territory,  and  opposition  to  the  increase  of  slavery, 
and  slave  representation. 

[1850]  It  is  a  stranga  and  a  melancholy  fact,  that 
not  one  single  national  speech  has  been  made  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  this  session.  Every  man 
speaks  to  defend  himself,  and  to  gratify  his  own  con- 
stituents. That  is  all.  No  one  inquires  how  the 
Union  is  to  be  preserved,  and  the  peace  of  the  country 
restored.  Meantime  all  important  public  measures  are 
worse  than  stationary.  The  tariff,  for  instance,  is  los- 
ing important  friends  through  the  irritation  produced 
by  these  slavery  debates.  I  suppose  no  history  shows  a 
case  of  such  mischiefs  arising  from  angry  debates  and 
disputes,  both  in  the  government  and  the  country,  on 
questions  of  so  very  little  real  importance. 

[1850]  You  have  heard  how  all  things  have  gone,  so 
far.  I  confess  I  feel  relieved.  Since  the  7th  of  March, 
there  has  not  been  an  hour  in  which  I  have  not  felt  a 
"crushing"  weight  of  anxiety  and  responsibility.  I 
have  gone  to  sleep  at  night,  and  waked  in  the  morning 
with  the  same  feeling  of  eating  care.  And  I  have  set 
down  to  no  breakfast  or  dinner  to  which  I  have  brought 
an  unconcerned  and  easy  mind.  It  is  over.  My  part 
is  acted,  and  I  am  satisfied.  The  rest  I  leave  to  stronger 
bodies  and  fresher  minds. 

[1850]  For  your  sake,  however,  I  will  say,  that  my 
public  speeches  show  my  opinion  to  have  been  decid- 
edly in  favor  of  a  proper,  efficient,  and  well-guarded 
law,  for  the  recovery  of  fugitive  slaves. 

[1851]  If  I  have  endeavored  to  defend  and  uphold 
the  Union  of  the  United  States  it  is  because  my  fixed 


82  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

judgment  and  my  unalterable  affections  have  impelled 
me,  and  still  impel  me,  to  regard  that  Union  as  the 
only  security  for  general  prosperity  and  national  glory. 
Yes,  Gentleman,  the  Constitution  and  the  Union!  1 
place  them  together.  If  they  stand,  they  must  stand 
together;  if  they  fall  they  must  fall  together. 

Vol.  I,  page  9,  45,  51,  66,  100,  123,  151,  175,  194,  236, 
256,  323,  329,  347,  350,  467,  526;  Vol.  II,  pp,  13,  32,  75, 
93,  106,  144,  196,  204,  369,  385,  402,  424. 

PART  II. 

Soon  after  Webster  entered  Congress  he  be- 
gan his  pleas  for  the  Union:  here  is  an  early 
example: 

What  else  is  it,  but  the  unrestrained  and  free  opera 
tion  of  that  same  Federal  Constitution,  which  it  has 
been  proposed  now  to  hamper,  and  manacle,  and  null- 
ify? Who  is  there  among  us,  that,  should  he  find 
himself  on  any  spot  of  the  earth  where  human  beings 
exist,  and  where  the  existence  of  other  nations  is 
known,  would  not  be  proud  to  say,  I  am  an  American? 
I  am  a  countryman  of  Washington?  I  am  a  citizen  of 
that  republic,  which,  although  it  has  suddenly  sprung 
up,  yet  there  are  none  on  the  globe  who  have  ears  to 
hear,  and  have  not  heard  of  it;  who  have  eyes  to  see, 
and  have  not  read  of  it;  who  knows  anything,  and  yet 
do  not  know  of  its  existence  and  its  glory?—  Webster's 
Works,  Vol.  I,  p.  205. 

In  combatting  the  views  of  some  men  in  Con- 
gress in  regard  to  the  management  of  the  pub- 
lic lands,  he  said: — 

[Land  System]  Yet,  of  late  years,  an  idea  has  been 
suggested,  indeed  seriously  advanced,  that  these  lands, 
of  right,  belong  to  the  States  respectively  in  ivhich  they 
happen  to  lie.  This  doctrine,  Sir,  which,  I  perceive, 
strikes  this  assembly  as  being  somewhat  extravagant, 
is  founded  on  an  argument  derived,  as  is  supposed, 
from  the  nature  of  State  sovereignty.  It  has  been 
openly  espoused,  by  candidates  for  office,  in  some  of 
the  new  States,  and,  indeed,  has  been  announced  in  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States.  —  Webster's  Works,  Vol.  i, 
p.  250. 


DANIEL  WEBSTER.  83 

Webster  discusses  the  Freedom  of  the  Press 
in  the  following  extracts  in  a  characteristic 
manner: 

In  all  popular  governments  a  Free  Press  is  the 
nost  important  of  all  agents  and  instruments. 

The  conductors  of  the  press,  in  popular  governments, 
occupy  a  place,  in  the  social  and  political  system  of 
the  very  highest  consequence.  They  wear  the  charac- 
ter of  public  instructors.  Their  daily  labors  bear  di- 
rectly on  the  intelligence,  the  morals  the  tastes,  and 
the  public  spirit  of  the  country.  Not  only  are  they 
journalists,  recording  political  oocurrences,  but  they 
discuss  principles,  they  comment  on  measures,  they 
canvass  characters;  they  hold  the  power  over  the  rep- 
utation, the  feelings,  the  happiness,  of  individuals. 


But  remember,  Sir,  that  these  are  the  attributes  of  a 
free  press  only.  And  is  a  press  that  is  purchased  or 
pensioned  more  free  than  a  press  that  is  fettered? 
Can  the  people  look  for  truths  to  partial  sources, 
whether  rendered  partial  through  fear  or  through  fa- 
vor? Why  shall  not  a  manacled  press  be  trusted  with 
the  maintenance  and  defense  of  popular  rights  ?  Be- 
cause it  is  supposed  to  be  under  the  influence  of  a 
power  which  may  prove  greater  than  the  love  of  truth. 
—  Webster's  Works.     Vol.  I,  p.  26k. 

In  a  speech  before  the  National  Republican 
Convention,  October  12,  1832,  he  treated  of 
nullification  in  these  words,  in  part: 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  not  discuss  the  doctrine  of  nul- 
lification. I  am  sure  it  can  have  no  friends  here. 
Gloss  it  and  disguise  it  as  we  may,  it  is  a  pretense  in- 
compatible with  the  authority  of  the  Constitution.  If 
direct  separation  be  not  its  only  mode  -of  operation, 
separation  is,  nevertheless,  its  direct  consequence. 
That  a  state  may  nullify  a  law  of  the  Union  and  still 
remain  in  the  Union;  that  she  may  have  Senators  and 
Representatives  in  the  government,  and  yet  be  it  lib- 
erty to  disobey  and  resist  that  government;  that  she 
may  partake  in  the  common  councils  and  yet  not  be 
bound  by  their  results;  that  she  may  control  a  law  of 


84  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

congress,  so  that  it  shall  be  one  thing  with  her,  while 
it  is  another  thing  with  the  rest  of  the  States;— all  these 
propositions  seem  to  me  so  absolutely  at  war  with  com- 
mon sense  and  reason,  that  I  do  not  understand  how 
any  intelligent  person  can  yield  the  slightest  assent  to 
them  Nullification  .  .  is  dissolution; it  is  dismem- 
berment; it  is  the  breaking  up  of  the  Union.— Webster, 
Works,  Vol  I,  p.  173. 

In  the  last  number  of  the  Monthly  a  quota- 
tion was  given  to  show  Clay's  views  on  the 
Greek  cause.  Here  are  Webster's  resolutions, 
and  a  few  extracts  from  his  speech: 

On  the  assembling  of  Congress  in  December,  1823, 
President  Monroe  made  the  revolution  in  Greece  the 
subject  of  a  paragraph  in  his  annual  message  and  on 
the  8th  of  December  Mr.  Webster  moved  the  following 
resolution  in  the  House  of  Representatives: 

"Resolved,  That  provision  ought  to  be  made,  by 
law,  for  defraying  the  expense  incident  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  an  Agent  or  Commissioner  to  Greece  whenever 
the  President  shall  deem  it  expedient  to  make  such 
appointment." 

These,  it  is  believed,  are  the  first  official  expressions 
favorable  to  the  independence  of  Greece  uttered  by 
any  of  the  Governments  of  Christendom,  and  no  doubt 
contributed  powerfully  towards  the  creation  of  that 
feeling  throughout  the  civilized  world  which  eventu- 
ally led  to  the  battle  of  Navarino  and  a  liberation  of  a 
portion  of  Greece  from  the  Turkish  yoke.  ...  It 
is  believed  that  the  whole  world  takes  a  deep  interest 
in  their  welfare.  Although  no  power  has  declared  in 
their  favor,  yet  none,  according  to  our  information 
has  taken  part  against  them.  Their  cause  and  their 
name  have  protected  them  from  dangers  which  might 
ere  this  have  overwhelmed  any  other  people.  .  .  . 
.  It  is  certainly  true  that  the  just  policy  of  this 
country  is,  in  the  first  place,  a  peaceful  policy.  No 
nation  ever  had  less  to  expect  from  forcible  aggrand- 
izement  In  the  next  place  I  take  it  that 

!>he  policy  of  this  country,  springing  from  the  nature 
of  our  government  and  the  spirit  of  all  our  institutions 
Is,  so  far  as  it  respects  the  interesting  questions  which 


DANIEL  WEBSTER-  85 

agitate  the  present  age  on  the  side  of  liberty  and  en- 
lightened sentiments It  cannot  be  denied 

that  the  great  political  question  of  this  a^»e  is  that  be- 
tween absolute  and  regulated  governments.  .  .  . 
This  asserted  right  of  forcible  intervention  in  the 
affairs  of  other  nations  is  in  open  violation  of  the  pub- 
lic law  of  the  world.  Who  has  authorized  these 
learned  doctors  of  Troppau  to  establish  new  articles  in 
this  code?  Whence  are  their  diplomas?  Is  the  whole 
world  supposed  to  acquiesce  in  principles  which  en- 
tirely subvert  the  independence  of  nations?  On  the 
basis  of  this  independence  has  been  reared  the  beauti- 
ful fabric  of  inter-national  law I  think  it 

is  sufficient  answer  to  this  to  say  that  we  are  one  of 
the  nations  of  the  earth;  that  we  have  an  interest 
therefore,  in  the  preservation  of  that  system  of  na- 
tional law  and  national  intercourse,  which  has  hereto- 
fore subsisted,  so    beneficially  for  all It 

may,  in  the  next  place,  be  asked,  perhaps,  Supposing 
all  this  to  be  true  what  can  we  do?  Are  we  to  go  to 
war?  Are  we  to  interfere  in  the  Greek  cause  or  any 
other  European  cause?  Are  we  to  endanger  our  pacific 
relations?  No,  certainly  not.  .  .  .  Sir,  this  reason- 
ing mistakes  the  age.  The  time  has  been  indeed,  when 
fleets,  armies,  and  subsidies,  were  the  principal  reli- 
ances even  in  the  best  cause.  But  happily  for  man- 
kind, a  great  change  has  taken  place  in  this  respect. 
Moral  causes  come  into  consideration  in  proportion  as 
the  progress  of  knowledge  is  advanced;  and  the  public 
opinion  of  the  civilized  world  is  rapidly  gaining  an 
ascendancy  over  mere  brutal  force.     .     .     . 

.  .  .  The  Greeks  address  the  civilized  world  with 
a  pathos  not  easy  to  be  resisted.  They  invoke  our 
favor  by  more  moving  considerations  than  can  well  be- 
long to  the  condition  of  any  other  people.  They  stretch 
out  their  arms  to  the  Christian  communities  of  the 
earth,  beseeching  them  by  a  generous  recognition  of 
their  ancestors,  by  the  consideration  of  their  desolated 
and  ruined  cities  and  villages,  by  their  wives  and  chil- 
dren sold  into  an  accursed  slavery,  by  their  blood  which 
they  seem  willing  to  pour  out  like  water,  by  the  com- 
mon faith,  and  in  the  name,  which  unites  all  Christians, 
that  they  would  extend  to  them  at  least  some  token  of 


86  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

compassionate  regard.— Webster,   Works  Vol.  Ill,  pp. 

60,  63,  64,  65,  74,  75,  77,  92-93. 

The  nature  of  the  Union  as  defined  and  de- 
scribed by  Webster,  January  26,  1830: 

There  remains  yet  to  be  performed,  Mr.  President, 
by  far  the  most  grave  and  important  duty,  which  I 
feel  to  be  devolved  on  me  by  this  occasion.  It  is  to 
state,  and  to  defend,  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  true 
principles  of  the  Constitution  under  which  we  are  here 
assembled.  I  might  well  have  desired  that  so  weighty 
a  task  should  have  fallen  into  other  and  abler  hands. 

I  understand  the  honorable  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina  to  maintain,  that  it  is  a  right  of  the  State 
legislatures  to  interfere,  whenever,  in  their  judgment 
this  government  transcends  its  constitutional  limits, 
and  to  arrest  the  operation  of  the  laws. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  this  right,  as  a  right 
existing  under  the  Constitution,  not  as  a  right  to 
overthrow  on  the  ground  of  extreme  necessity,  such  as 
would  justify  violent  revolution. 


I  understand  him  to  maintain,  that  the  ultimate 
power  of  judging  of  the  constitutional  extent  of  its 
own  authority  is  not  lodged  exclusively  in  the  general 
government,  or  any  branch  of  it;  but  that,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  States  may  lawfully  decide  for  themselves, 
and  each  State,  for  itself,  whether,  in  a  given  case,  the 
act  of  the  general  government  transcends  its  power. 

I  understand  him  to  insist,  that,  if  the  exigency  of 
the  case,  in  the  opinion  of  any  state  government,  re- 
quire it,  such  state  government  may,  by  its  own  sover- 
eign authority,  annul  an  act  of  the  general  government 
which  it  deems  plainly  and  palpably  unconstitutional. 


Allow  me  to  say,  .  .  .  that  I  call  this  the  South 
Carolina  doctrine  only  because  the  gentleman  himself 
has  so  demonstrated  it.  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  say 
that  South  Carolina  as  a  state,  has  ever  advanced  these 
sentiments.  I  hope  she  has  not,  and  never  may.— 
Webster's  Works,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  317,  318. 

This  leads  us  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  this  gov- 
ernment and  the  source  of  its  power.     Whose  agent  is 


DANIEL  WEBSTER.  87 

it?    Is  it  a  creation  of  the  State  legislatures,  or  the  cre- 
ation of  the  people? 

If  the  government  of  the  United  States  be  the  agent 
of  the  State  governments,  then  they  may  control  it; 
.  .  .  if  it  be  the  agent  of  the  people,  then  the  peo- 
ple alone  can  control  it,  restrain  it,  modify,  or  reform 
it. 


It  is,  Sir,  the  people's  Constitution,  the  people's  gov- 
ernment, made  for  the  people,  made  by  the  people,  and 
answerable  to  the  people.  The  people  of  the  United 
States  have  declared  that  this  Constitution  shall  be  the 
supreme  law. — Ibid.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  321. 

If  there  be  no  power  to  settle  such  questions,  inde- 
pendent of  either  of  the  States,  is  not  the  whole  Union 
a  rope  of  sand  ?  Are  we  not  thrown  back  again,  pre- 
cisely, upon  the  old  Confederation. 

It  is  too  plain  to  be  argued.  Four-and-twenty  inter- 
preters of  constitutional  law,  each  with  a  power  to  de- 
cide for  itself,  and  none  with  authority  to  bend  any 
body  else,  and  this  constitutional  law  the  only  bond  of 
their  union!  What  is  such  a  state  of  things  but  a 
mere  connection  during  pleasure,  or,  to  use  the  phrase- 
ology of  the  times,  during  feeling?  And  that  feeling, 
too,  not  the  feeling  of  the  people,  who  established  the 
Constitution,  but  the  feeling  of  the  State  governments. 
—Hid,,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  324. 

For  myself,  Sir,  I  do  not  admit  competency  of  South 
Carolina,  or  any  other  State,  to  prescribe  my  constitu- 
tional duty;  or  to  settle,  between  me  and  the  people,  the 
validity  of  laws  of  Congress,  for  which  I  have  voted. 


To  avoid  all  possibility  of  being  misunderstood,  allow 
me  to  repeat  again,  in  the  fullest  manner,  that  I  claim 
no  powers  for  the  government  by  forced  or  unfair  con- 
struction. I  admit  that  it  is  a  government  of  strictly 
limited  powers;  of  enumerated,  specified,  and  particu- 
larized powers;  and  whatsoever  is  not  granted,  is  with- 
held.— I  bid.,  Vol  III,  p.  336. 

Webster  prepared  a  bill  on  the  Appointment 
and  Removal  of  government  officials;  these  ex- 
tracts from  his  speech  in  support  of  the  bill 
indicate  his  views  on  the  question: 


88  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

Mr.  President.  The  professed  object  of  this  bill  is 
the  reduction  of  executive  influence  and  patrorage.  1 
concur  in  the  propriety  of  that  object.  Having  no 
wish  to  diminish  or  control,  irt  the  slightest  degree,  the 
constitutional  and  legal  authority  of  the  presidential 
office,  yet  I  think  the  indirect  and  rapidly  increasing 
influence  which  it  possesses  and  which  arises  from  the 
power  of  bestowing  office  and  taking  it  away  again  at 
pleasure,  and  from  the  manner  in  which  that  power 
seems  now  to  be  systematically  exorcised  is  productive 
of  serious  evils.  The  unlimited  power  to  grant  office 
and  to  take  it  away,  gives  a  command  over  the  hopes 
and  fears  of  a  vast  multitude  of  men.  It  is  generally 
true  that  he  who  controls  another  man's  means  of  living 
controls  his  will.  .  .  .  The  existence  of  parties  in 
popular  governments  is  not  to  be  avoided ;  and  if  they 
are  formed  on  constitutional  questions,  or  in  regard  to 
great  measures  of  public  policy,  and  do  not  run  to  ex- 
cessive length  it  may  be  admitted  that  on  the  whole, 
they  do  no  great  harm.  But  the  patronage  of  office, 
the  power  of  bestowing  place  and  emoluments  creates 
parties,  not  upon  any  principle  or  any  measure  bat  upon 
the  single  ground  of  personal  interest.  Under  the  di- 
rect influence  of  this  motive  they  form  round  a  leader, 
and  they  go  for  the  "spoils  of  victory."  And  if  the 
party  chieftain  becomes  the  national  chieftain,  he  is  still 
but  too  apt  to  consider,  all  who  have  opposed  him  as 
enemies  to  be  punished  and  all  who  have  supported 
him  as  friends  to  be  rewarded.  Blind  devotion  to 
party,  and  to  the  head  of  a  party,  thus  takes  the  place 
of  the  sentiment  of  generous  patriotism  and  a  high  and 
exalted  sense  of  public  duty.  .  .  .  Does  he  not  be- 
hold, every  hour,  a  stronger  development  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  personal  attachment  and  a  corresponding 
dimunition  of  genuine  and  generous  public  feeling? 
Sir,  the  theory  of  our  institutions  is  plain, 
it  is,  that  government  is  an  agency  created  for  the 
good  of  the  people  and  that  every  person  in  office  is 
an  agent  and  servant  of  the  people.  .  .  .  The  sec- 
ond check  on  executive  patronage  contained  in  this  bill 
is  of  still  greater  importance  than  the  first.  This  pro- 
vision is,  that;  whenever  the  president  removes  any  of 
these  officers  from  office,  he  shall  state  to  the  senate  the 


DA  MET.  WHITER. 


89 


reasons  for  such  removal.  This  part  of  the  bill  has 
been  opposed,  both  on  constitutional  grounds  and 
grounds  of  expediency  ...  I  think  then,  Sir,  that 
the  power  of  appointment  naturally  and  necessarily 
includes  the  power  of  removal,  wThere  no  limitation  is 
expressed,  nor  any  tenure  but  that  at  will  declared. 
The  power  of  appointment  being  conferred  on  the  pres- 
ident and  Senate,  I  think  the  power  of  removal  went 
along  wTith  it,  and  exercised  by  the  same  hands.  I 
think  consequently  that  the  decision  of  1789,  which  im- 
plied a  power  of  removal  separate  from  the  appointing 
powrer  was  erroneous. 

From  Webster's  Works,  Vol.  IV,  Speech  "Appoint- 
ing and  Removing  Power,"  made  in  U.  S.  Senate  Feb- 
ruary 16,  1835.— Webster's  Works,  Vol  IV,  pp.  178-198. 

In  Webster's  speech  on  the  Bank  Charter  of 
1S34  he  outlines  very  well  his  financial  views, 
and  discusses  the  relation  of  banks  to  public 
credit: 

Mr.  President,  in  the  midst  of  ample  means  of 
national  and  individual  happiness,  wTe  have,  unex- 
pectedly, fallen  into  severe  distress.  Our  course  has 
been  suddenly  arrested.  The  general  pulse  of  life 
stands  still,  and  the  activity  and  industry  of  the 
country  feels  a  pause.     .  .     The  condition  of  the 

country  is,  indeed,  singular.  It  is  like  that  of  a  strong 
man  chained.  In  full  health,  with  strength  unabated, 
and  all  its  faculties  unimpaired,  it  is  yet  incapable  of 
performing  its  accustomed  action.  Fetters  and  man- 
acles are  on  its  limbs.  ...  It  is  often  inquired 
how  this  enormous  amount  of  evil  could  spring  from  a 
cause  apparently  so  inadequate  to  produce  it.  Can  it 
be  possible,  it  is  asked,  that  the  Secretary  has  brought 
about  all  this  distress  simply  by  removing  a  few  mil- 
lions of  dollars  out  of  one  bank  into  other  banks?  -  . 
.  Every  commercial  country  has  one  great  representa- 
tive constantly  passing  and  acting  between  all  its 
citizens.  This  universal  representative  is,  credit,  or 
money,  in  some  form  as  its  substitute.     .  •     And 

all  the  distress  which  the  country  now  suffers  arises 
solely  from  acts  which  have  deranged  the  currency  of 
the  country  and   the  credit  of  the  commercial  com- 


90  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

mtmity.  The  country  is  as  rich  in  its  general  appear- 
ance, as  it  was  before  the  experiment  was  begun;  that 
is  to  say,  men  have  the  same  houses,  lands,  ships  and 
merchandise.  But  the  value  of  these  has  fallen;  or,  to 
speak  mere  correctly,  they  have  lost  the  power  of  being 
exchanged,  and  they  have  lost  this  power  because  of 
the  embarrasment  which  has  befallen  the  general 
medium  of  exchange.  .  .  .  The  secretary  disturbed 
this  state  of  peace.  He  broke  up  all  the  harmony  of 
the  system.  By  suddenly  withdrawing  all  the  public 
moneys  from  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  he  forced 
that  bank  to  an  immediate  correspondent  curtailment 
of  its  loans  and  discounts.  ...  I  hold  the  immedi- 
ate convertibility  of  bank  notes  into  specie  to  be  an  in- 
dispensable security  for  their  retaining  their  value.  . 
.  .  This  commercial  credit,  Sir,  depends  on  wise 
laws,  steadily  administered.  Indeed,  the  best  gov- 
erned countries  are  always  the  richest.  .  .  .  The 
history  of  banks  belongs  to  the  history  of  commerce 
and  the  general  history  of  liberty.  ...  In  what 
instance  have  they  endangered  liberty  or  overcome  the 
laws?  This  very  existence,  on  the  contrary,  depends 
on  the  rule  of  both  liberty  and  law.  .  .  .  It  is  felt, 
by  every  one,  that  this  is  a  case  in  which  the  acts  of 
the  government  come  directly  home  to  him,  and  pro- 
duce either  good  or  evil,  every  hour,  upon  his  personal 
and  private  condition.  And  how  is  this  public  ex- 
pectation met?  How  is  this  intense,  this  agonized  ex- 
pectation answered.  I  am  grieved  to  say.  I  am 
ashamed  to  say,  it  is  answered  by  declamations  against 
the  bank  as  a  monster,  by  loud  cries  against  a  moneyed 
aristocracy,  by  pretended  zeal  for  a  hard  money  system 
and  by  professions  of  favor  and  regard  to  the  poor. 
The  poor!  We  are  waging  war  for  the  benefit  of  the 
poor!  We  slay  the  monster,  the  bank,  that  we  may 
defeat  the  unjust  purposes  of  the  rich,  and  elevate  and 
protect  the  poor.  And  what  is  the  effect  of  all  this? 
What  happens  to  the  poor,  and  all  the  middling  classes 
in  consequence  of  this  warfare?  Where  are  they? 
Are  they  well  fed,  well  clothed,  well  employed,  in- 
dependent, happy  and  grateful?  They  are  all  at  the 
feet  of  the  capitalists,  they  are  in  the  jaws  of  usury. 
Sir,  let  the  system  of  the  Administration  go  on  and  we 


DANIEL  WEBSTER.  91 

shall  soon  not  know  our  country.  We  shall  see  a  new 
America.  On  the  map  where  these  United  States  have 
stood,  we  shall  behold  a  country  that  is  new  to  us. 
We  shall  see  a  class  of  idle  rich,  and  a  class  of  idle 
poor,  the  former  a  handful,  the  latter  a  host  ,  .  . 
The  truth  is  that  banks,  everywhere,  and  especially 
with  us,  are  made  for  the  borrowers.  They  are  made 
for  the  good  of  the  many  and  not  for  the  good  of  the 
few.  Even  their  ownership,  to  a  great  extent,  is  in  the 
hands  of  men  of  moderate  property.  .  .  .  Indeed, 
Sir,  I  think  it  time,  high  time,  that  there  should  be  a 
pause  in  this  outcry  against  the  bank,  as  dangerous  in 
its  political  power,  or  as  favoring  wealth  in  its  ac- 
cumulation rather  than  in  its  distribution.  Prejudice 
excited  against  the  bank  is  a  much  more  powerful 
political  engine  than  the  bank  itself.  It  is  more  than 
a  match  for  ten  banks.  —  Webster's  Works,  Vol  IV,  p. 
82-95. 

Towards  the  close  of  his  life  he  still  empha- 
sized the  idea  of  Union  as  these  extracts  show; 
from  a  speech  in  the  Senate,  March  23,  1848. 

In  that  little  part  which  I  have  acted  in  public  life, 
it  has  been  my  purpose  to  maintain  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  what  the  Constitution  designed  to  make 
them,  one  people,  one  in  interest  one  in  character,  and 
one  in  political  feeling.  If  we  depart  from  that,  we 
break  it  all  up.     .     .     . 

Arbitrary  governments  may  have  territories  and  dis- 
tant possessions,  because  arbitrary  governments  may 
rule  them  by  different  laws  and  different  systems,  .  , 
We  can  do  no  such  thing.  They  must  be  of  us, 
r>art  of  us,  or  else  strangers. 

I  think  I  see  that  in  progress  which  will  disfigure  and 
deform  the  Constitution.  While  these  territories  re- 
main territories,  they  will  be  a  trouble  and  an  annoy- 
ance; they  will  draw  after  them  vast  expenses;    ,     .     . 

I  think  I  see  a  course  adopted  which  is  likely  to  turn 
the  Constitution  of  the  land  into  a  deformed  monster, 
into  a  curse  rather  than  a  blessing;  in  fact,  a  frame  of 
an  unequal  government,  not  founded  upon  popular  rep- 
resentation, not  founded  upon  equality,  but  on  the  gross- 
est inequality;  and  I  think  that   this  process  will  go 


.92  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

on,  or  that  there  is  clanger  that  it  will  go  on,  until  this 
Union  shall  fall  to  pieces.  I  resist  it,  to-day  and  all 
ways!  Whoever  falters  or  whoever  flies,  I  continue  the 
contest!  Webster's  Works,  Vol.  V,  p.  300.  Speech  de- 
livered in  the  Senate,  March  23,  IS 48. 

The  annexation  of  foreign  territory  was  dis- 
cussed by  Webster.  His  general  position  may 
be  understood  from  these  extracts: 

.  .  .  And  how  is  it  with  California.  We  propose 
to  take  California,  from  the  forty-second  degree  of  north 
latitude  down  to  the  thirty-second.  .  .  .  But  if, 
jnst  about  San  Francisco,  and  perhaps  Monterey,  emi- 
grants enough  should  settle  to  make  up  one  State,  then 
the  people  five  hundred  miles  off  would  have  another 
State.  And  so  this  disproportion  of  the  Senate  to  the 
people  will  go  on,  and  must  go  on,  and  we  cannot  pre- 
vent it.  I  say,  Sir,  that,  according  to  my  conscientious 
conviction,  we  are  now  fixing  on  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  and  its  frame  of  government,  a  mon- 
strosity, a  disfiguration,  an  enormity!  Sir,  I  hardly 
dare  trust  myself.  I  don't  know  but  I  may  be  under 
some  delusion.  It  may  be  the  weakness  of  my  eyes 
that  forms  this  monstrous  apparition.     .     .     . 

But  then,  Sir,  what  relieves  the  case  of  this  enormity? 
What  is  our  reliance?  Why,  it  is  that  we  stipulate 
that  these  new  States  shall  be  brought  in  at  a  suitable 
time.  And  pray,  what  is  to  constitute  the  suitableness 
of  time?  Who  is  to  judge  of  it?  I  tell  you,  Sir,  that 
suitable  time  will  come  when  the  preponderance  of 
party  power  here  makes  it  necessary  to  bring  in  the  new 
States."—  Webster's  Works,  Vol.  V,  p.  291-292. 

My  first  agency  in  matters  of  this  kind  was  upon  the 
proposition  for  admitting  Texas  into  the  Union.  That 
I  thought  it  my  duty  to  oppose,  upon  the  general 
ground  of  opposing  all  formation  of  new  States  out  of 
foreign  territory,  and,  I  may  add,  and  I  ought  to  add 
in  justice,  of  States  in  which  slaves  were  to  be  repre- 
sented in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. — Ibid., 
Vol.  V.  p.  2S6. 

But  it  is  said  we  must  take  territory  for  the  sake  of 
peace.  We  must  take  territory.  It  is  the  will  of  the 
President.     If  we  do  not  take  what  he  offers,  we  may 


DANIEL  WEBSTER.  93 

fare  worse.  Mr.  Polk  will  take  no  less,  that  he  is  fixed 
upon.  He  is  immovable.  He— has— put— down— his 
—foot!  Well,  Sir,  he  put  it  down  upon  "fifty-four 
forty,"  but  it  didn't  stay.  I  speak  of  the  President,  as 
of  all  Presidents,  without  disrespect.  I  know  of  no 
reason  why  his  opinion  and  his  will,  his  purpose,  de- 
clared to  be  final,  should  control  us,  .  .  .—Ibid., 
Vol.  V,  p.  282. 

I  have  said  I  would  rather  have  no  peace  for  the  pres- 
ent, than  have  a  peace  which  brings  territory  for  new 
States;  and  the  reason  is,  that  we  shall  get  peace  as 
soon  without  territory  as  with  it,  more  safe,  more  dur- 
able, and  vastly  more  honorable  to  us,  the  great  re- 
public of  the  world. 

But  we  hear  gentlemen  say,  we  must  have  some  ter 
ritory,  the  people  demand  it.  I  deny  it;  at  least,  I  see 
no  proof  of  it  whatever.—  Ibid.,  Vol.  V,  p.  281. 

Sir,  I  fear  we  are  not  yet  arrived  at  the  beginning  of 
the  end.     I  pretend  to  see  but  little  of  the  future,  and 
that  little  affords  no  gratification.     All  I  can  scan  is 
contention,  strife,  and  agitation.     Before  we  obtain  a 
perfect  right  to  conquered  territory,  there  must  be  a 
cession.     A  cession  can  only  be  made  by  treaty.     No 
treaty  can  pass  the  Senate,  till  the  Constitution  is  over- 
thrown, without  the  consent  of  two-thirds  of  its  mem- 
bers.    Now  who  can  shut  his  eyes  to  the  great  prob- 
ability of    a   successful  resistance    to  any  treaty  of 
cession,  from  one  quarter  of  the  Senate  or  another? 
Will  the  North  consent  to  a  treaty  bringing  in'  terri- 
tory subject  to  slavery?    Will  the  South  consent  to  a 
treaty  bringing  in  territory  from  which  slavery  is  ex- 
cluded?   Sir,  the  future  is  full  of  difficulties  and  full 
of  dangers.     We  are  suffering  to  pass  the  golden  op- 
portunity for  securing  harmony  and  the  stability  of 
the  Constitution.     We  appear  tome  to  be  rushing  upon 
perils  headlong,  and  with  our  eyes  wide  open.     But  I 
put  my  trust  in  Providence,  and  in  that  good  sense 
and  patriotism  of  the  people,  which  will  yet,  1  hope, 
be  awakened  before  it  is  too  late.— IUd.,  Vol  V,  p 
261. 

In  arguing  on  the  tariff,  July,  1846,  he  said, 
in  part: 

The  Northwestern  States  are  destined  to  be  manu- 
facturing States.    They  have  iron  and   coal    They 


94  AMERICAN   HISTORY  STUDIES.  > 

have  a  people  of  laborious  habits.  They  have  already 
capital  enough  to  begin  works  such  as  belong  to  new 
States  and  new  communities;  and  when  the  time 
comes,  and  it  cannot  but  come  soon,  they  will  see  their 
true  interest  to  be,  to  feed  the  Northern  and  Eastern 
manufacturers,  as  far  as  they  may  require  it,  and  in 
the  mean  time  begin  to  vary  their  own  occupations, 
by  having  classes  of  men  amongs't  them  who  are  not 
of  the  now  universal  agricultural  population.  The 
sooner  they  begin  this  work  the  better;  and  begin  it 
they  will,  because  they  are  an  intelligent  and  active 
people,  and  cannot  fail  to  see  in  what  direction  their 
true  interest  lies.  —  Webster's  Works,  Vol  V,  p.  233. 

In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Bolton,  of  Georgia,  in 
1833,  Webster  uses  this  language  in  regard  to 
slavery: 

In  my  opinion,  the  domestic  slavery  of  the  Southern 
States  is  a  subject  within  the  exclusive  control  of  the 
States  themselves;  and  this,  I  am  sure,  is  the  opinion  of 
the  whole  North.  Congress  has  no  authority  to  inter 
fere  in  the  emancipation  of  slaves,  or  in  the  treatment 
of  them  in  any  of  the  States.  This  was  so  resolved  in 
the  House  of  Representatives,  when  Congress  sat  in 
this  City  in  1790,  on  the  report  of  a  committee  consisting 
almost  entirely  of  Northern  members;  and  I  do  not 
know  an  instance  of  the  expression  of  a  different  opin- 
ion,  in  either  house  of  Congress,  since 

The  servitude  of  so  great  a  portion  of  the  population  of 
the  South  is  undoubtedly  regarded  at  the  North  as  a 
great  evil,  moral  and  political;  and  the  discussions 
upon  it  which  have  recently  taken  place  in  the  legisla- 
tures of  several  of  the  slaveholding  States  have  been 
read  with  very  deep  interest.  But  it  is  regarded,  never- 
theless, as  an  evil,  the  remedy  for  which  lies  with  those 
legislatures  themselves,  to  be  provided  and  applied 
according  to  their  own  sense  of  policy  and  duty. — 
Webster's  Works,  Vol.  VI,  p.  536. 

In  1850,  in  regard  to  the  danger  to  the  Union 
from  the  slavery  question,  he  said: 

These  consequences  1  willingly  meet,  these  dangers 
I   encounter  without    hesitations    being   resolved   to 


DANIEL  WEBSTER.  95 

throw  myself,  with  whatever  weight  may  belong  to 
me,  unreservedly  into  the  scale  of  Union.  Where 
Washington  led,  I  am  willing  to  follow,  at  a  vast  dis- 
tance, indeed,  and  with  unequal,  but  no  faltering 
steps.  —  Webster's  Works,  Vol.  VI,  p.  550. 

With  a  few  extracts  from  Webster's  famous 
"  Seventh  of  March"  speech,  our  little  picture 
of  AVebster  must  be  called  finished: 

I  wish  to  speak  to-day,  not  as  a  Massachusetts  man, 
nor  as  a  Northern  man,  but  as  an  American,  and  a 
member  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  ...  It 
is  not  to  be  denied  that  we  live  in  the  midst  of  strong 
agitations,  and  surrounded  by  very  considerable  dan- 
gers to  our  institutions  and  government.  The  impris- 
oned winds  are  let  loose.  The  East,  the  North,  and  the 
stormy  South  combine  to  throw  the  whole  sea  into  com- 
motion, to  toss  its  billows  to  the  skies,  and  disclose  its 

profoundest  depths Now,  Sir,   upon  the 

general  nature  and  influence  of  slavery  there  exists  a 
wide  difference  of  opinion  between  the  northern  por- 
tion of  this  country  and  the  southern.  It  is  said  on  the 
one  side,  that  .  .  .  slavery  is  a  wrong;  that  it  is 
founded  merely  in  the  right  of  the  strongest;  .  .  . 
[In  the  South.  J  There  are  thousands  of  religious  men, 
with  consciences  as  tender  as  any  of  their  brethren  at 
the  North,  who  do  not  see  the  unlawfulness  of  slavery: 
.  .  .  But  we  must  view  things  as  they  are.  Slavery 
does  exist  in  the  United  States.  It  did  exist  in  the 
States  before  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  and  at 
that  time.     .     .     . 

Now,  as  to  California  and  New  Mexico,  I  hold  slavery 
to  be  excluded  from  those  territories  by  a  law  even 
superior  to  that  which  admits  and  sanctions  it  in  Texas. 
I  mean  the  law  of  nature,  of  physical  geography,  the 
law  of  the  formation  of  the  earth.  ...  I  should  be 
unwilling  to  receive  from  the  legislature  of  Massa- 
chusetts any  instructions  to  present  resolutions  ex- 
pressive of  any  opinion  whatever  en  the  subject  of 
slavery,  .     .,  for  two  reasons:  first,  because  I  do 

not  consider  that  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts  has 
anything  to  do  with  it;  and  next,  because  I  do  not  con- 
sider that  I,  as  her  representative  here,  have  anything 
to  do  with  it,    .    .    , 


96  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

Then,  Sir,  there  are  the  Abolition  societies,  of  which  I 
am  unwilling  to  speak,  but  in  regard  to  which  I  have  very 
clear  notions  and  opinions.  I  do  not  think  them  useful.  I 
think  their  operations  for  the  last  twenty  years  have  pro- 
duced nothing  good  or  valuable.     .     .     . 

I  hear  with  distress  and  anguish  the  word  "secession," 
especially  when  it  falls  from  the  lips  of  those  who  are  patri- 
otic, and  known  to  the  country,  and  known  all  over  the 
world,  for  their  political  services.  Secession  !  Peaceable 
secession  !  Sir,  your  eyes  and  mine  are  never  destined  to 
see  that  miracle.  ...  A  voluntary  separation,  without 
alimony  on  one  side  and  on  the  other.  Why?  What  would 
be  the  result  ?  Where  is  the  line  to  be  drawn  ?  What  States 
are  to  secede?  What  is  to  remain  American?  What  am  I 
to  be?  An  American  no  longer?  Where  is  the  flag  of  the 
republic  to  remain  ? 

And  now,  Mr.  President,  instead  of  speaking  of  the  pos- 
sibility or  utility  of  secession,  instead  of  dwelling  in  those 
caverns  of  darkness,  instead  of  groping  with  those  ideas  so 
full  of  all  that  is  horrid  and  horrible,  let  us  come  out  into 
the  light  of  day  ;  let  us  enjoy  the  fresh  air  of  Liberty  and 
Union  ;  let  us  cherish  those  hopes  that  belong  to  us  ;  let  us 
devote  ourselves  to  those  great  objects  that  are  fit  for  our 
consideration  and  our  action  :  let  us  raise  our  conceptions 
to  the  magnitude  and  the  importance  of  the  duties  that 
devolve  upon  us  ;  let  our  comprehension  be  as  broad  as  the 
country  for  which  we  act,  our  aspirations  as  high  as  its 
certain  destiny  ;  let  us  not  be  pigmies  in  a  case  that  calls  for 
men.— Webster's  Works,  Vol.  V,  pp.  325,  330,  333,  350,  356, 
357,  361,  365. 

QUESTIONS 

(1)  What  peculiar  point  do  you  notice  in  the  first  extract? 
(2)  What  is  said  of  Webster  as  a  student?  (3)  What  was  his 
method  of  work?  (4)  What  does  he  lay  down  as  a  rule 
necessary  to  follow  for  success?  (5)  How  did  he  regaid 
democracy  in  the  early  years  of  his  public  life?  (6)  How 
did  he  regard  Calhoun?  (7)  How  Adams?  (8)  Whom  did 
the  Federalists  support  for  president?  (9)  What  did  Webster 
think  about  the  tariff?  (10)  Did  Webster  understand  Jack- 
son? (11)  What  did  Webster  think  of  Free  Masonry?  Why? 
(12)  Write  an  essay  about  Webster  basing  it  upon  the  ex- 
tracts from  his  private  letters. 


DANIEL    WEBSTER.  97 

(1)  For  what  thought  especially  does  Webster  stand  in 
American  politics?  (2)  Bring  together  all  the  expres- 
sions that  prove  your  conclusion.  (3)  What  doctrine 
did  he  combat  in  regard  to  the  public  lands?  (4) 
Why?  Can  you  expand  upon  his  argument?  (5)  What 
position  did  he  take  in  regard  to  the  press  ?  (6)  In  what 
ways  may  it  be  corrupted?  (7)  What  do  you  think  in 
regard  to  the  duty  of  newspapers?  (8)  What  remedy 
would  Webster  suggest? 

(li  What  arguments  did  Webster  use  in  regard  to 
the  doctrine  of  nullification?  (2)  Trace  his  arguments 
in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  Constitution.  (3)  Whom 
did  he  mean  by  " the  people"?  (4)  Compare  his  argu- 
ments for  the  Constitution  with  Clay's. 

(1)  Analyze  Webster's  speech  on  Greece.  (2)  Com- 
pare it  with  Clay's.  (3)  Which  was  the  more  eloquent? 
(4)  Which  one  the  more  argumentative?  (5)  What  lead- 
ing thought  had  each  in  mind  ? 

(1)  Discuss  Webster's  views  about  the  appointing 
power.  (2)  About  the  right  to  remove  offices.  (3) 
What  evils  did  he  find  in  the  method  then  practiced? 

(4)  What  was  his  remedy?  (5)  Would  the  remedy  h»Y# 
led  to  other  evils,  in  your  opinion?  (6)  What  did  Wa- 
ster believe  in  regard  to  a  national  bank?  (7)  State  hi* 
opinion  in  regard  to  the  causes  of  the  crisis  of  18S4 
(8)  Can  you  find  an  expression  in  his  private  letters 
that  seems  to  contradict  his  public  speech  on  this  ques- 
tion? (9;  What  was  to  be  the  result  of  the  destruction 
of  the  Bank?    (10)  Was  his  prediction  verified? 

(1)  What  did  Webster  believe  in  regard  to  slavery? 
(2)  In  regard  to  the  rights  of  the  slave  master?  (3)  In 
regard  to  the  rights  of  the  states  over  slavery?  (4i  In 
regard  to  the  rights  of  the  United  States  over  slavery? 

(5)  How  would  he  settle  the  issue?  (6)  Was  his  idea 
practical?  (7)  Did  his  "Seventh  of  March"  speech 
have  a  different  tone  from  earlier  speeches? 

(1)  What  did  he  think  about  annexing  new  territory? 
(2)  State  his  arguments.  (3)  Would  they  be  applicable 
now?  (4)  Were  he  living  would  he  probably  support 
or  oppose  the  annexation  of  the  Philippines?  (5j 
Choose  the  passages  you  believe  justify  your  conclu- 
sion. 

(1)  What  passage  do  you  believe  to  be  his  most  elo- 
quent one  ?  Why  ?  (2)  Make  out  a  series  of  « '  outlines, " 
one  for  each  topic  treated. 


JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN 


Bora  in  South  Carolina,  1782.  Member  of  state 
legislature,  1807-1811.  Member  of  House  of 
Representatives,  1811-1817.  Secretary  of  war, 
1817-1S25.  Vice-President,  1825-1830.  Senator, 
1830-1844.  Secretary  of  state,  1844-1845.  Sen- 
ator, 1845-1850.  Famous  articles  on  nullifica- 
tion, 1828-1832.  Great  speech,  March  4,  1850. 
Died,  1850. 


CHAPTER  Y 
JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN 

IN  the  two  preceding  numbers,  we  have 
studied  the  lives  and  works  of  two  of  onr 
great  national  statesmen.  In  this  number 
we  have  brought  before  us  the  greatest  of  all 
the  States  Eights'  men.  Calhoun  began  life  as 
a  supporter  of  the  national  idea.  He  never 
teased  to  love  the  Union,  and  died,  I  believe, 
coping  that  the  impossible  might  yet  be 
Achieved — the  continued  association  of  two  op- 
posing principles  in  the  same  nation.  In  one 
sense  Calhoun  was  never  a  secessionist.  He 
argued  that  simple  justice  should  be  done  the 
South;  and  this  could  be  done,  he  asserted,  by- 
allowing  to  that  section  the  right  to  settle  its 
own  local  questions.  Perhaps  he  did  not  see 
that  he  was  asking  the  North  to  cease  thinking 
and  willing;  it  was  to  have  no  opinion  in  re- 
gard to  the  character  of  slavery.  To  him  the 
Constitution  meant  that  the  North  had  no  right 
to  have  or  at  least  to  express  an  opinion  on  the 
subject.  The  whole  question  had  1  een,  by  the 
Constitution,  left  with  the  states.  Each  state 
was  free  to  act  for  itself  as  it  pleased.  As  far 
as  action  was  concerned,  Webster,  Clay,  and 
even  Lincoln  agreed  with  him.  Calhoun,  how- 
ever, held  that  expressing  opinions,  calling 
slavery  a  wrong  or  a  sin,  was  also  within  the 
prohibition.     Here  we  come  upon  the  insoluble 


JOHN   C.    CALHOUN.  1Q1 

phnse  of  the  question.  Yet  when  all  has  b?en 
said  for  Calhoun,  it  is  doubtless  true  that  he 
was  a  powerful  factor  in  developing  the  events 
which  led  to  secession.  Slavery  was  a  necessity; 
the  Union  was  not.  If  slavery  could  not  con- 
tinue in  the  Union,  then  the  Union  must  fall. 

The  speech,  of  March  4,  1S50,  the  last  words 
almost  of  Calhoun,  show  that  he  yet  believed 
that  l  oth  could  continue;  and,  when  less  than 
a  month  later  he  passed  away,  it  was  with  the 
hope  that  the  result  which  he  saw  so  plainly 
under  certain  conditions  might  not  come  to 
pass.  Certainly  he  thought  "  the  two  sections 
will  do  justice  to  each  other,  and  the  Union  can 
thus  continue." 

So  large  a  part  of  the  public  life  of  Caihoun 
was  intimately  connected  with  slavery  and  the 
nature  of  the  Union  that  I  have  let  these  two 
ideas  dominate  in  the  selections  chosen. 

There  were  no  quotable  letters  accessible  for 
Calhoun's  earlier  years,  nor  for  his  private 
life.  A  few  words,  therefore,  about  him  may 
be  necessary  here. 

Kis  father  was  born  in  Ireland  of  Scotch- 
Irish  stock,  but  came  to  this  country  when  a 
lad.  In  1770  he  married  Miss  Caldwell  of  a 
Virginia  family.  When  Calhoun  was  thirteen 
years  old  his  father  died,  leaving  him  to  the 
care  of  his  mother.  He  was  raised  on  a  small 
plantation  and  as  his  health  was  rather  deli- 
cate and  means  not  abundant,  he  did  not  start 
to  college  until  he  was  nineteen,  c  He  gradu- 
ated at  Vale,  however,  four  years  later,  and 
after  three  years  study  of  law,  began  its  prac- 
tice at  twenty-six.  Before  he  was  thirty  he 
was  prominent  in  the  politics  of  his  state,  and 


102  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

soon   became  not  only  its  leader,  but  also  one 
of  the  foremost  statesmen  of  his  time. 

The  following  extracts  from  his  speech  in 
Congress  of  December  12,  1811,  will  show  his 
position  on  the  war  of  1812,  and  incidentally  his 
views  about  the  powers  of  the  Federal  govern- 
ment: 

I  understood  the  opinion  of  the  Committee  on  For- 
eign Relations,  differently  from  what  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia  (Mr.  Randolph)  has  stated  to  be  his  im- 
pression. I  certainly  understood  that  the  committee 
recommended  the  measures  now  before  the  House,  as  a 
preparation  for  war;  .  .  .  Indeed,  the  report  could 
mean  nothing  but  war  or  empty  menace.  I  hope  no 
member  of  this  House  is  in  favor  of  the  latter.  A  bul- 
lying, menacing  system,  has  everything  to  condemn 
and  nothing  to  recommend  it.  In  expense,  it  almost 
rivals  war.  It  excites  contempt  abroad  and  destroys 
confidence  at  home.  Menaces  are  serious  things  and 
ought  to  be  resorted  to  with  as  much  caution  and  seri- 
ousness, as  war  itself;  and  should,  if  not  successful,  be 
invariably  followed  by  it.     .     . 

War  in  our  country,  ought  never  to  be  resorted  to 
but  when  it  is  clearly  justifiable  and  necessary;  so 
much  so  as  not  to  require  the  aid  of  logic  to  convince 
our  understandings;  nor  the  ardor  of  eloquence  to  in- 
flame our  passions.  There  are  many  reasons  why  this 
country  should  never  resort  to  war  but  for  causes  the 
most  urgent  and  necessary.     .     . 

Sir,  I  might  prove  the  war,  should  it  ensue,  justifia- 
ble, by  the  express  admission  of  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia;  .  .  .  Why  should  I  mention  the  impress- 
ment of  our  seamen ;  depredations  on  every  branch  of 
our  commerce,  including  the  direct  export  trade,  con- 
tinued foy  years,  and  made  under  laws  which  profess- 
edly undertake  to  regulate  our  trade  with  other  na- 
tions; negotiations  resorted  to,  again  and  again,  till  it 
is  become  hopeless;  the  restrictive  system  persisted  in 
to  avoid  war,  and  in  the  vain  expectation  of  returning 
justice?  The  evil  still  grows,  and,  in  each  succeeding 
year,  swells  in  extent  and  pretention  beyond  the  pre- 


JOHN   C.    CALHOUN.  103 

ceding.  .  .  The  question,  even  in  the  opinion  and 
admission  of  our  opponents  is  reduced  to  this  single  poin  t 
—Which  shall  we  do,  abandon  or  defend  our  own  com- 
mercial and  maritime  rights,  and  the  personal  liberties 
of  our  citizens  employed  in  exercising  them?  These 
rights  are  vitally  attacked  and  war  is  the  only  means 
of  redress.     .     .     . 

The  first  argument  .  .  .  which  I  shall  notice,  is 
the  unprepared  state  of  the  country.  ...  If  our 
country  is  unprepared,  let  us  remedy  the  evil  as  soon 
as  possible.  .  .  .  Let  the  gentleman  submit  his 
plan;  .  .  .  Let  him  not  say,  "I  have  acted  in  a 
minority."  It  is  no  less  the  duty  of  the  minority  than 
a  majority  to  endeavor  to  defend  the  country.  For 
that  purpose  we  are  sent  here,  and  not  for  that  of 
opposition. 

We  are  next  told  of  the  expenses  of  the  war;  and 
that  the  people  will  not  pay  taxes.  Why  not?  Is  it 
from  want  of  means?    .     .     . 

No,  it  has  the  ability;  that  is  admitted;  and  will  it 
not  have  the  disposition?  Is  not  the  cause  a  just  and 
necessary  one?  Shall  we  then  utter  this  libel  on  the 
people?  Where  will  proof  be  found  of  a  fact  so  dis- 
graceful? .  .  .  But  it  may  be,  and  I  believe  was 
said,  that  the  people  will  not  pay  taxes,  because  the 
rights  violated  will  not  be  worth  defending;  or  that 
the  defence  will  cost  more  than  the  gain.  Sir,  I  here 
enter  my  solemn  protest  against  this  low  and  "calcu- 
lating avarice  "  entering  this  hall  of  legislation.  It  is 
only  fit  for  shops  and  counting  houses,  and  ought 
not  to  disgrace  the  seat  of  power  by  its  squalid  aspect 

We  are  next  told  of  the  dangers  of  war.  I  believe 
we  are  all  ready  to  acknowledge  its  hazards  and  mis- 
fortunes.    .     .     . 

But  we  have  not  yet  come  to  the  end  of  the  chapters 
of  dangers.  The  gentleman's  imagination,  so  fruitful 
on  this  subject,  conceives  that  our  constitution  is  not 
calculated  for  war,  and  that  it  cannot  stand  its  rude 
shock.  ...  If  true,  we  must  then  depend  upon  the 
commiseration  or  contempt  of  other  nations  for  our 
existence.  The  constitution,  then,  it  seems,  has  failed 
in  an  essential  object,  "to  provide  for  the  common  de- 
fence.        -     . 


104  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

The  love  of  France  and  the  hatred  of  England  have 
also  been  assigned  as  the  cause  of  the  present  measures. 
France  has  not  done  us  justice,  says  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia,  and  how  can  we,  without  partiality,  resist 
the  aggressions  of  England?  .  .  .  But  I  protest 
against  the  principle  from  which  this  conclusion  is 
drawn.  .  .  .  Sir,  when  two  invade  your  rights,  you 
may  resist  both  or  either  at  your  pleasure.  It  is  regu- 
lated by  prudence  and  not  by  right.  The  stale  impu- 
tation of  partiality  for  France  is  better  calculated  for 
the  columns  of  a  newspaper,  than  for  the  wall3  of  this 
House. -Calhoun,  Works,  Vol.  11,  pp.  1,  2,  3,  5,  6,  7,  9, 
11. 

January  14,  1813,  he  used  these  words  in  a 
debate  over  the  New  Army  Bill: 

.  .  .  Whether,  indeed,  the  principles  of  '98  are 
such  as  the  gentleman  has  represented  them  to  be,  I 
will  not  inquire,  because  not  necessary  to  my  argu- 
ment. But  if  they  are,  in  truth,  those  of  the  gentle- 
man and  his  present  associates,  I  should  be  happy  to 
k  low  with  what  countenance  they  can  request  the 
p3opie  of  this  country  to  put  the  government  into  their 
hands.  Trust  the  government  to  those  who  are  hos- 
tile to  itl  If  our  opponents  are,  in  reality,  in  favor  of 
such  principles,  patriotism  ought  to  persuade  them  to 
add  one  other,  and  that  is,  ever  to  remain  a  minority. 

.  .  .  But,  say  our  opponents,  as  they  were  op- 
posed to  war,  they  are  not  bound  to  support  it.  .  .  . 
War  has  been  declared  by  a  law  of  the  land;  and  what 
would  be  thought  of  similar  attempts  to  defeat  any 
other  law,  however  inconsiderable  its  object?  Who 
would  dare  to  avow  an  intention  to  defeat  its  opera- 
tion? Can,  that  then,  be  true  in  relation  to  war 
which  would  be  reprobated  in  every  other  case?  Can 
that  course  be  right,  which,  when  the  whole  physical 
force  of  the  country  is  needed,  withdraws  half  of  that 
force?    .     .     . 

We  are  further  told,  that  impressment  of  seamen 
was  not  considered  a  sufficient  cause  for  war;  and  are 
ayked,  why  should  it  be  continued  on  that  account? 
Individually  (said  Mr.  Calhoun)  I  do  not  feel  the  force 
of  the  argument.     .     .     . 


JOHN   C.    CALHOUN.  105 

But  it  is  said  that  we  ought  to  offer  to  England  suit- 
able regulations  on  this  subject.  .  .  .  Sir,  I  deny 
that  we  are  bound  to  tender  any  regulations.  Eng- 
land is  the  party  injuring.  .  .  .  But  we  have 
made  our  offer;  it  is,  that  the  ship  should  protect  the 
sailor.  It  is  the  most  simple  and  only  safe  rule. — 
Ibid.,  pp.  jj4,  4-5,  49,  50,  51. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  tne  Bill 
to  increase  the  Direct  Tax: 

Mr.  Calhoun  said,  he  did  not  rise  to  consider  whether 
the  war  was  originally  just  and  necessary,  or  whether 
the  administration  had  abandoned  the  original  objects 
of  the  contest  .  .  .  You  have,  for  an  enemy,  a 
Power  the  most  implacable  and  formidable  ...  To 
meet  this  state  of  things,  the  whole  of  our  resources 
will  have  to  be  called  into  action;  and,  what  is  of  equal 
importance,  with  such  promptitude  as  to  be  ready  to 
act  as  soon  as  the  season  will  admit     .     .     . 

The  enemy  at  present,  presses  the  war  both  on  our 
seaboard  and  interior  frontier.  The  nature  of  the  con- 
test on  either  will,  if  properly  considered,  indicate  the 
mode  in  which  it  ought  to  be  met.  On  the  seaboard  it 
must  be  strictly  defensive. 

On  the  Canada  frontier  the  war  must  assume  an  op- 
posite character.  If  we  wish  to  act  with  effect,  it  must 
there  be  wholly  offensive.    .     .     . 

Her  bosom  is  repossessed  with  the  ambition  and  proj- 
ects that  inspired  her  in  the  year  seventy-six.  It  is  the 
war  of  the  Revolution  revived;  we  are  again  struggling 
for  our  liberty  and  independance.  .  .  .  Ibid.,  pp. 
110,  111,  112,  US,  116. 

Extracts  from  his  speech  of  February  26, 
1S16,  in  the  debate  concerning  the  establish- 
ment of  a  National  Bank: 

He  did  not  propose  to  comprehend,  in  this  discussion, 
the  powe*-  of  Congress  to  grant  bank  charters:  nor  the 
question  whether  the  general  tendency  of  baiiks  was 
favorable  or  unfavorable  to  the  liberty  and  prosperity 
of  the  country.  .  .  To  discuss  this  question,  he  con- 
ceived, would  be  a  useless  consumption  of  time.  The 
constitutional  question  had  been  already  so  freely  dis- 
8 


106  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

cussed,  that  all  had  made  tip  their  minds  on  it.  The 
question  whether  banks  were  favorable  to  public  lib- 
erty and  prosperity,  was  one  purely  speculative.     .    .    . 

Having  established,  as  he  conceived,  in  the  course  of 
his  remarks,  that  the  excess  of  paper  issue  was  the  true 
and  only  cause  of  depreciation  of  our  paper  currency, 
Mr.  C.  turned  his  attention  to  the  manner  in  which 
that  excess  had  been  produced.  It  was  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  suspension  of  specie  payments.  They 
stood  as  cause  and  effect.  First,  the  excessive  issues 
caused  the  suspension  of  specie  payments;  an  advant- 
age had  been  taken  of  that  suspension  to  issue  still 
greater  floods  of  it.     . 

A  national  bank,  he  said,  paying  specie  itself,  would 
have  a  tendency  to  make  specie  payments  general,  as 
well  by  its  influence  as  by  its  example.     .     .     . 

The  restoration  of  specie  payments,  Mr.  C.  argued, 
would  remove  the  embarrassments  under  which  the  in- 
dustry of  the  country  labored,  and  the  stains  from  its 
public  and  private  faith.  It  remained  to  see  whether 
this  House,  without  whose  aid  it  was  vain  to  expect 
success  in  this  object,  would  have  the  fortitude  to  ap- 
ply this  remedy.—  Ibid.,  pp.  154,  159,  160,  161. 

His  views  in  1816,  in  regard  to  the  tariff,  are 
set  forth  in  these  extracts  from  his  speech  of 
April  16  of  that  year: 

The  debate  heretofore  on  this  subject  has  been  on 
the  degree  of  protection  which  ought  to  be  afforded  to 
our  cotton  and  woollen  manufacturers:  all  professing 
to  be  friendly  to  those  infant  establishments,  and  to  be 
willing  to  extend  to  them  adequate  encouragement. 

Neither  agriculture,  manufactures,  nor  commerce, 
taken  separately,  is  the  cause  of  wealth;  it  flows  from 
the  three  combined,  and  cannot  exist  without  each.  . 
.  .  When  our  manufactures  are  grown  to  a  certain 
perfection,  as  they  soon  will  under  the  fostering  care 
of  Government,  we  will  no  longer  experience  these 
evils.  The  farmer  will  find  a  ready  market  for  his 
surplus  produce;  and,  what  is  almost  of  equal  conse- 
quence, a  certain  and  cheap  supply  of  all  his  wants. 
His  prosperity  will  diffuse  itself  to  every  class  in  the 


JOHN    C.    CALHOUN.  107 

community;  and,  instead  of  that  languor  of  industry 
and  individual  distress  now  incident  to  a  state  of  war 
and  suspended  commerce,  the  wealth  and  vigor  of.  »he 
community  will  not  be  materially  impaired.  .  .  . 
To  give  perfection  to  this  state  of  things,  it  will  be 
necessary  to  add,  as  soon  as  possible  a  system  of  in- 
ternal improvements,  and  at  least  such  an  extension  of 
our  navy  as  will  prevent  the  cutting  off  of  our  coasting 
trade.     .     .     . 

On  the  contrary  he  firmly  believed  that  the  country 
is  prepared,  even  to  maturity,  for  the  introduction  of 
manufactures.  We  have  abundance  of  resources,  and 
things  naturally  tend  at  this  moment  in  that  direction. 

Other  objections  of  a  political  character  were  made 
to  the  encouragement  of  manufactures.  It  is  said  they 
destroy  the  moral  and  physical  power  of  the  people. 
This  might  formerly  have  been  true  to  a  considerable 
extent,  before  the  perfection  of  machinery,  and  when 
the  success  of  the  manufactures  depended  on  the  min- 
ute subdivisions  of  labor.  At  that  time  it  required  a 
large  proportion  of  the  population  of  a  country  to  be 
engaged  in  them;  and  every  minute  subdivision  of  labor 
is  undoubtedly  unfavorable  to  the  intellect;  but  the 
great  perfection  of  machinery  has  in  a  considerable 
degree  obviated  these  objections.     .  .     It  has  been 

further  asserted  that  manufactures  are  the  fruitful 
cause  of  pauperism;  and  England  has  been  referred  to 
as  furnishing  conclusive  evidence  of  its  truth.  For  his 
part,  he  could  conceive  no  such  tendency  in  them,  but 
the  exact  contrary,  as  they  furnished  new  stimulus 
and  means  of  subsistence  to  the  laboring  classes  of  the 
community.     .     .     . 

Again,  it  is  calculated  to  bind  together  more  closely 
our  widely-spread  republic.  ...  He  regarded  the 
fact  that  it  would  make  the  parts  adhere  more  closely; 
that  it  would  form  a  new  and  most  powerful  cement, 
as  out-weighing  any  political  objection  that  might  be 
urged  against  the  system.  In  this  opinion  the  liberty 
and  the  union  of  this  country  were  inseparably  united. 
That,  as  the  destruction  of  the  latter  would  most  cer- 
tainly involve  the  foimer,  so  its  maintainance,  will 
with  equal  certainty  preserve  it.     .    .    .     This  single 


108  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

wor*.  comprehended  almost  the  sum  of  onr  political 
dangers;  and  against  it  we  ought  to  be  perpetually 
guarded.— I  bid.,  pp.  163,  166,  167,  169,  171,  172,  173 

March  9,  183G,  he  made  his  first  great  speech 
on  the  "Abolition  petitions.'1  In  part,  he 
said : 

The  decision,  then,  of  the  question  now  before  the 
Senate  is  reduced  to  the  single  point— Are  we  bound  to 
receive  these  petitions?  Or,  to  vary  the  form  of  the 
question— Would  it  be  a  violation  of  the  right  of  peti- 
tion not  to  receive  them?    . 

There  must  be  some  point  all  will  agree,  where  the 
right  of  petition  ends,  and  that  of  this  body  begins.  . 
.  .  To  extend  the  right  of  petition  beyond  represen- 
tation, is  clearly  to  extend  it  beyond  that  point  where 
the  action  of  the  Senate  commences  and,  as  such,  is  a 
manifest  violation  of  its  constitutional  rights.  Here 
then  we  have  the  limits  between  the  right  of  petition 
and  the  right  of  the  Senate  to  regulate  its  proceedings 
clearly  fixed,  and  so  perfectly  defined  as  not  to  admit 
of  mistake— and  I  would  add  of  controversy,  had  it  not 
been  questioned  in  this  discission. 

.  .  .  At  the  head  of  these  it  has  been  urged,  again 
and  again,  that  petitions  have  a  right  to  be  heard,  and, 
that  not  to  receive  petitions  is  to  refuse  a  hearing. 

What  then  is  meant  by  the  assertion  that  these  peti- 
tioners have  a  right  to  be  heard  ?  Is  it  meant  that  they 
have  a  right  to  appear  in  the  Senate  chamber  in  per- 
son to  present  their  petition,  and  to  be  heard  in  its  de- 
fence?   .  •   . 

But  one  more  xense  can  be  attached  to  the  assertion. 
It  may  be  meant  that  the  petitioners  have  a  right  to 
have  their  petitions  discussed  by  the  Senate.     .     .     . 

My  object  at  present  is  to  establish  beyond  the  possi- 
bility of  doubt  that  we  are  not  bound  to  receive  these 
petitions;  and  when  that  is  accomplished,  I  will  then 
show  the  disastrous  consequences  which  must  follow 
the  reception  of  the  petition,  be  the  after  disposition 
what  it  may.     .     .     . 

I  have  now,  I  trust,  established  beyond  all  contro- 
versy, that  we  are  not  bound  to  receive  these  petitions; 


JOHN   G    CALHOUN.  109 

and  that  if  we  should  reject  them  we  would  not,  in  the 
slightest  degree,  infringe  the  right  of  petition 

Give  the  right  of  petition  the  extent  contended  for- 
decide  that  we  are  bound  under  the  constitution,  to  re- 
ceive these  incendiary  petitions,  and  the  very  motion 
before  the  Senate  would  be  out  of  order.  If  tlw  con- 
stution  makes  it  our  duty  to  receive,  we  would  have  no 
discretion  left  to  reject,  as  the  motion  presupposes. 

Of  all  the  rights  belonging  to  a  deliberative  body  I 
know  of  none  more  universal,  or  indispensable  to  a 
proper  performance  of  its  functions,  than  the  right  to 
determine  at  its  discretion  what  it  shall  receive  over 
what  it  shall  extend  its  jurisdiction,  and  to  what  it 
shall  direct  its   deliberation  and  action  To 

what  would  we  commit  ourselves  ?  If  a  petition  should 
be  presented,  praying  the  abolition  of  the  constitution 
(which  we  are  all  bound  by  our  oaths  to  protect),  ac- 
cording to  this  abominable  doctrine,  it  must  be  re- 
ceived. So  if  it  prayed  the  abolition  of  the  Decalogue 
or  of  the  Bible  itself.     . 

No  one  can  believe  that  the  fanatics,  who  have  flooded 
this  and  the  other  House  with  their  petitions,  entertain 
the  slightest  hope  that  Congress  would  pass  a  law  at 
this  time,  to  abolish  slavery  in  this  District. 

Such  would  be  the  advantages  yielded  to  the  aboli- 
tionists. In  proportion  to  their  gain  would  be  our  loss. 
What  would  be  yielded  to  them  would  be  taken  from 
us.  Our  true  position,  that  which  is  indispensable  to 
our  defence  here,  is,  that  Congress  has  no  legitimate 
jurisdiction  over  the  subject  of  slavery  either  here  or 
elsewhere.     . 

The  Senators  from  the  slaveholding  States,  who  most 
unfortunately,  have  committed  themselves  to  vote  for 
receiving  these  incendiary  petitions,  tell  us  that  when- 
ever the  attempt  shall  be  made  to  abolish  slavery  thev 
will  join  with  us  to  repel  it.  I  doubt  not  the  sincer- 
ity of  their  declaration.  We  all  have  a  common  inter- 
est and  they  cannot  betray  ours,  without  betrayin-  at 
he  same  time,  their  own.  But  I  announce  to  them 
that  they  are  now  called  on  to  redeem  their  pledge 
The  attempt  is  now  being  made.  The  work  is  goin- 
on  daily  and  hourly.     The  war  is  waged,  not  only  in 


110  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

the  most  dangerous  manner,  but  in  the  only  manner 
that  it  can  be  waged.  Do  they  expect  that  the  aboli- 
tionists will  resort  to  arms,  and  commence  a  crusade  to 
liberate  our  slaves  by  force?  Is  this  what  they  mean 
when  they  speak  of  the  attempt  to  abolish  slavery?  If 
so,  let  me  tell  our  friends  of  the  South  who  differ  from 
us,  that  the  war  which  the  abolitionists  wage  against 
us  is  of  a  very  different  character,  and  far  more  effec- 
tive. It  is  a  war  of  religious  and  political  fanaticism, 
mingled,  on  the  part  of  the  leaders,  with  ambition  and 
the  love  of  notoriety  and  waged  not  against  our  lives, 
but  against  our  character.  The  object  is  to  humble 
and  debase  us  in  our  own  estimation,  and  that  of  the 
world  in  general;  to  blast  our  reputation  while  they 
overthrow  our  domestic  institutions.  This  is  the  mode 
in  which  they  are  attempting  abolition,  with  such  am- 
ple means  and  untiring  industry;  and  now  is  the  time 
for  all  who  are  opposed  to  them  to  meet  the  attack- 
How  can  it  be  successfully  met?  This  is  the  important 
question.  There  is  but  one  way:  we  must  meet  the 
eneny  on  the  frontier  on  the  question  of  receiving;  we 
must  secure  that  important  pass— it  is  our  Thermop- 
ylae. The  power  of  resistance,  by  an  universal  law  of 
nature,  is  on  the  exterior.  Break  through  the  shell- 
penetrate  the  crust,  and  there  is  no  resistance  within. 
In  the  present  contest,  the  question  on  receiving  con- 
stitutes our  frontier.  Ibid.,  pp.  466,  467,  469,  470,  471, 
479,  4S0,  481,  482,  483,  484- 

His  relations  to  General  Jackson,  in  1837, 
come  out  pretty  well  in  the  quotation  from 
Jackson's  letter,  and  the  reply  of  Calhoun  in 
the  Senate: 

' '  You  cannot  but  be  aware,  sir,  that  the  imputations 
which  your  language  conveys  are  calculated,  if  be- 
lieved, to  destroy  my  character  as  a  man,  and  that  the 
charge  is  one  which,  if  true,  ought  to  produce  my  im- 
peachment and  punishment  as  a  public  officer.  If  I 
caused  the  removal  of  the  deposits  for  the  base  pur- 
pose of  enriching  myself  or  my  friends  by  the  results 
which  might  grow  out  of  that  measure,  there  is  no  term 
of  reproach  which  I  do  not  deserve,  and  no  punish- 
ment known  to  the  laws  which  ought  not  to  be  in- 


JOHN   C.    CALHOUN.  HI 

flic  ted  n^on  me.  On  the  contrary,  if  the  whole  impu- 
tation, both  as  to  motive  and  fact,  be  a  fabrication  and 
a  calumny,  the  punishment  which  belongs  to  me,  if 
guilty,  is  too  mild  for  him  who  willfully  makes  it. 

On  this  Calhoun  makes  the  following  com- 
ments: 

I  do  not  intend,  said  Mr.  C,  in  what  I  propose  to  say, 
to  comment  on  the  character  or  the  language  of  this  ex- 
traordinary letter.  It  has  excited  in  my  bosom  but  one 
feeling,  that  of  pity  for  the  weakness  of  its  author, 
contempt  for  his  menace,  and  humiliation  that  one  oc- 
cupying the  office  which  he  does,  should  place  himself 
in  a  situation  so  unworthy  of  his  exalted  station. 

My  object  is  to  avail  myself  of  the  occasion  to  reiter- 
ate what  I  said,  as  broadly  and  fully  as  I  uttered  them 
on  a  former  occasion.     .     .     . 

I  then  asked  what  had  caused  this  inundation  of 
paper?  The  answer  was,  the  "experiment"  (I  love  to 
remind  the  gentleman  of  the  word)  which  had  re- 
moved the  only  restrictions  that  existed  against  the 
issue  of  bank  paper.  The  consequences  were  predicted 
at  the  time;  it  was  foretold  that  banks  would  multiply 
almost  without  number,  and  pour  forth  their  issues 
without  restriction  or  limitation 

The  experiment  commenced  by  a  transfer  of  the  pub- 
lic funds  from  where  they  were  placed  by  law,  and 
where  they  were  under  safe  guard  and  protection,  to 
banks  which  were  under  the  sole  and  unlimited  con- 
trol of  the  Executive 

I  then  remarked  that,  if  rumor  were  to  be  trusted,  it 
was  not  only  in  a  political  point  of  view  that  those  in 
power  had  profited  by  the  vast  means  put  in  the  hands 
of  the  Executive  by  the  experiment— they  had  profited 
in  a  pecuniary,  as  well  as  in  a  political  point  of  view. 

Having  established  these  points,  I  next  undertook  to 
show  that  this  bill  would  consummate  these  specula- 
tions, and  establish  the  political  ascendancy  which  the 
experiment  had  given  to  the  Administration.     .     .     . 

Having  established  this  point,  I  then  undertook  to 
show,  that  it  would  increase  vastly  the  power  of  the 
government  in  the  new  States,  if  they  chose  to  exer- 
cise this  patronage  for  political  purposes.     .... 


112  AMEBIC  AN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

Assuming,  then  that  the  power  would  be  exercised 
with  a  view  to  political  influence,  I  showed  that  it 
would  place  a  vast  number  of  the  citizens  of  the  new 
States,  probably  not  less  than  one  hundred  thousand, 
in  a  condition  of  complete  dependence  on   the  receiv" 

ers,  and  vassalage  to  the  Government 

—Calhoun,  Works,  Vol  III,  pp.  2,  3,  5,  6,  7,  S,  9, 

February  14,  1837,  Calhoun  sets  forth  Ms 
views  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  international 
law  to  slavery  in  these  remarks  in  the  Senate: 

The  three  brigs  were  engaged  in  the  coasting  trade; 
.  .  .  The  Enterprise  was  forced,  by  stress  of  weather, 
into  Port  Hamilton,  Bermuda;  where  the  slaves  on 
board  were  forcibly  seized  and  detained  by  the  local 
authorities.     .     .     . 

These  are  the  essential  facts  of  the  case.  He  did  not 
intend  to  argue  the  question  that  grew  out  of  them. 
There  was,  indeed,  little  or  no  ground  for  argument. 
No  one,  in  the  least  conversant  with  the  laws  of  na- 
tions, can  doubt  that  those  vessels,  were  as  much  under 
the  protection  of  our  flag,  while  on  their  voyage,  pro- 
ceeding from  one  part  of  the  Union  to  another,  as  if 
they  were  in  port,  lying  at  the  wharves,  within  our 
acknowledged  jurisdiction.  Nor  is  it  less  clear  that, 
forced  as  the  Enterprise  was,  by  stress  of  weather,  and 
taken,  under  the  circumstances,  as  the  passengers  and 
crews  of  the  other  two  were,  into  the  British  dominions, 
they  lost  none  of  the  rights  which  belong  to  them  wThile 
on  their  voyage  on  the  ocean.  So  far  otherwise— so  far 
from  losing  the  protection  which  our  flag  gave  them 
while  on  the  ocean,  they  had  superadded,  by  their  mis. 
fortunes,  the  additional  rights  which  the  laws  of  hu- 
manity extend  to  the  unfortunate  in  their  situation, 
and  which  are  regarded  by  all  civilized  nations  as 
sacred.  It  follows  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that  the 
municipal  laws  of  the  place  could  not  divest  the  own- 
ers of  the  property  which,  as  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  they  held  in  the  slaves  who  were  passengers  in 
the  vessels;— and  yet,  as  clear  as  is  this  conclusion, 
they  were  forcibly  seized  and  detained  by  the  local 
authorities  of  the  island;  and  the  government  of  Great 


JOHN   C.    CALHOUN.  113 

Britain,  after  five  years'  negotiation,  has  not  only  with- 
held redress,  but  has  not  even  deigned  to  answer  the 
oft  repeated  application  of  our  government  in  regard 
to  it.  We  are  thus  left,  by  its  silence,  to  conjecture 
the  reason  for  so  extraordinary  a  course. 

On  casting  his  eyes  over  the  whole  subject  he  could 
fix  but  on  one  that  had  the  least  plausibility— and  f.hat 
resting  on  a  principle  which  it  was  scarcely  credible 
that  a  government  so  intelligent  could  assume:  he 
meant  the  principle  that  there  could  not  be  property  in 
persons. 

The  principle  which  would  abrogate  the  property  of 
our  citizens  in  their  slaves,  would  equally  abrogate  the 
dominion  of  Great  Britain  over  the  subject  nations 
under  her  control.  If  an  individual  can  have  no  prop- 
erty in  another,  how  can  one  nation,  which  is  but  an 
aggregate  of  individuals,  have  dominion,  which  involves 
the  highest  right  of  property,  over  another?  If  man 
has,  by  nature,  the  right  of  self-government,  have  not 
nations,  on  the  same  principle,  an  equal  right?— Ibid., 
pp.  10,  11,  12. 

Whether  he  had  changed  his  views  in  regard 
to  the  constitutionality  of  a  bank  may  perhaps 
be  inferred  from  these  extracts  from  a  speech 
of  1837: 

He  was  not  prepared  to  say  what  the  opinion  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States  is,  at  this  time,  in  relation 
to  a  Bank;  and  much  less  was  he  prepared  to  commit 
himself  in  favor  of  one  in  the  contingency  contemplated 
by  the  amendment.  Where  the  Constitution  or  import- 
ant principles  are  involved,  his  only  guide  was  his  judg- 
ment and  his  conscience,  and  not  the  popular  voice. 

He  was  master  of  his  own  move;  and  acknowledged 
connection  with  no  party  but  the  States  Right  party, 
—the  small  band  of  nullifiers— and  acted  either  with  or 
against  the  administration  or  the  National  party  just 
as  it  was  calculated  to  further  the  principles  and  policy 
which  we,  of  that  party,  regard  as  essential  to  the  lib- 
erty and  institutions  of  the  country.     .      .      . 

The  object  for  which  he,  and  those  with  whom  he  had 


114  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

acted  had  united  with  the  Nationals,  had  been  accom- 
plished—Executive usurpation  had  been  arrested.  .  .  . 
We  are  sworn  enemies  both  of  Executive  and  Legis- 
lative usurpation;  and  of  the  two,  more  opposed,  if 
possi>'e,  to  the  latter  than  the  former,  because,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  they  must  take  precedence  in.  the 
order  of  time.  Without  Legislative  there  could  be  no 
Executive  usurpation.     .     .     .—Ibid.,  pp.  97,  98,  99. 

The  resolutions  that  Calhoun  in'roduced  into 
the  Senate  in  1837  led  to  one  of  the  very  fa- 
mous debates  in  our  history.  The  following  ex- 
tracts from  the  resolutions  and  Calhoun's  speech 
in  their  support  will  let  us  see  Calhoun  better 
than  almost  any  speech  of  his  senatorial  career: 

Resolved,  That  in  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution, the  States  adopting  the  same,  acted  severally, 
as  free,  independent  and  sovereign  States;  and  that 
each,  for  itself,  by  its  own  voluntary  act,  entered  into 
the  Union  with  a  view  to  its  increased  security  against 
all  dangers,  domestic,  as  well  as  foreign,  and  the  more 
perfect  and  secure  enjoyment  of  its  advantages, 
natural  political,  and  social. 

Resolved:  That,  in  delegating  a  portion  of  their 
powers  to  be  exercised  by  the  Federal  Government,  the 
states  retained,  severally,  the  exclusive  and  sole  right 
over  their  own  domestic  institutions  and  police,— and 
are  alone  responsible  for  them;    .     .     . 

Resolved,— That  this  Government  was  instituted  and 
adopted  by  the  several  States  of  this  Union  as  a  com- 
mon a,gent,  in  order  to  carry  into  effect  the  powers 
which  they  had  delegated  by  the  constitution  for  their 
mutual  security  and  prosperity ;     .     .     . 

Resolved,  That  the  intermeddling  of  any  State  or 
States,  or  their  citizens,  to  abolish  slavery  in  this  Dis- 
trict, or  in  any  of  the  territories,  on  the  ground,  or 
under  the  pretext,  that  it  is  immoral  or  sinful— or  the 
passage  of  any  act  or  measure  of  Congress  with  that  view> 
would  be  a  direct  and  dangerous  attack  on  the  institu- 
tions of  all  the  slave  holding  States.      .     .     . 

After  reading  his  resolutions,  he  said: 

He  did  not  desire  that  these  resolutions  should   pass 


JOHN   C.    CALHOUN.  115 

by  a  bare  majority;  he  wished  them  to  pass  by  a  unani- 
mous vote.     .     .     . 

He  lo./kcd  to  these  resolutions  to  awake  an  active 
spirit  in  favor  of  the  constitution.  The  idea  that  this 
Republic  is  made  up  of  one  great  aggregate  of  individ- 
uals, tended  to  increase  the  zeal  of  these  fanatics,  and 
the  more  rapid  spread  of  their  doctrines  .     . 

On  the  one  side,  there  was  a  portion  of  the  people  of 
the  North,  who  assert  and  maintain  that  our  domestic 
institutions  are  sinful  and  immoral.  On  the  other,  we 
claim  these  institutions  as  secured  to  us  under  the 
Constitution,  which  we  will  not  suffer  them  to  inter- 
fere with;  and  here  is  the  point  at  issue.      .     .     . 

Mr.  C.  professed  himself  a  firm  and  unflinching 
friend  of  the  Union.  He  was  averse  to  making  pro- 
fessions—but he  had,  on  this  subject,  been  shamefully 
and  grossly  misrepresented,  here  and  elsewhere.      .     . 

This  spirit  of  abolition  was  nothing  more  or  less  than 
that  fanaticism,  which  had  carried  thousands  of  vic- 
tims to  the  stake.  What  aroused  that  demoniacal 
spirit  in  past  time,  but  the  opinion  that  the  faith  of 
one  man  was  criminal  in  the  eyes  of  another?  Here, 
the  same  spirit  was  attempted  to  be  revived,  under  the 
name  of  abolition;  and  he  trusted  the  good  sense  of 
the  country  would  put  it  down. 

He  now  saw  with  equal  clearness,  as  clear  as  the 
noon-day  sun,  the  fatal  consequences  which  would  fol 
low  if  the  present  disease  be  not  timely  arrested.  He 
would  repeat  again,  what  he  had  so  often  said  on  this 
floor.  This  was  the  only  question  of  sufficient  magni- 
tude and  potency  to  divide  this  Union;  and  divide  it, 
it-  would,  or  drench  the  country  in  blood,  if  not  arrested. 

The  assaults  daily  made  on  the  institutions  of  nearly 
one-half  of  the  States  of  this  Union  by  the  other— insti- 
tutions interwoven  from  the  beginning  with  their  polit- 
ical and  social  existence,  and  which  cannot  be  other 
than  they  are,  without  their  inevitable  destruction 
will,  and  must,  if  continued,  make  two  peoples  of  one, 
by  destroying  every  sympathy  between  the.  two  great 
sections,  obliterating  from  their  hearts  the  recollec- 
tions of  their  common  danger  and  glory,  and  implanting 
in  their  place  a  mutual  hatred,  more  deadly  than  ever 


116  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

existed  between  two  neighboring  peoples  since  the  com- 
mencement of  the  human  race.  He  feared  not  the  cir- 
culation of  the  thousand  incendiary  and  slanderous 
publications,  which  were  daily  issued  from  an  organized 
and  powerful  press,  among  those  intended  to  be  villified. 

The  Senator  next  inquired,  what  was  meant  by  the 
States  Rights  party.  He  did  not  expect  the  inquiry  from 
that  quarter;  but  as  it  was  made,  he  would  reply  to  it. 
He  meant  the  party  who  believed  that  this  was  a  fed- 
eral republic,  a  republic,  the  constituent  parts  of  which 
were  states;  in  contradistinction  to  a  national  consoli- 
dated republic,  in  which  the  constituent  parts  were  the 
aggregate  mass  of  the  American  people,  taken  collec- 
tively, and  in  which  the  states  bore  the  same  relation 
to  the  whole  as  counties  do  to  the  states. 

He  ought  not,  perhaps,  to  be  surprised  that  Senators 
should  differ  so  widely  from  him  on  this  subject.  They 
did  not  view  the  disease  as  he  did.  He  saw  working  at 
the  bottom  of  these  movements  the  same  spirit  which, 
two  centuries  ago,  convulsed  the  Christian  world  and 
deluged  it  in  blood;  that  fierce  and  cruel  spirit  of  per- 
secution which  originated  in  assumed  superiority  and 
mistaken  principles  of  duty  that  made  one  man  believe 
that  he  was-  accountable  for  the  sins  of  another,  and 
that  he  was  the  judge  of  what  belonged  to  his  tem- 
poral and  eternal  welfare,  and  was  bound,  at  the  peril  of 
his  own  soul,  to  interfere  to  rescue  him  from  perdition. 
Against  this  fell  and  bloody  spirit  it  was  in  vain  to  in- 
terpose this  amendment.—  Ibid.,  pp.  140,  141,  143,  147, 
148,  153,  154,  166, 177-178. 

In  1847,  he  makes  another  speech,  which 
lays  Calhoun  and  his  ideas  bare  to  our  view: 

Mr.  President,  it  was  solemnly  asserted  on  this  floor 
sometime  ago,  that  all  parties  in  the  non-slave-holding 
states  had  come  to  a  fixed  and  solemn  determination 
upon  two  propositions.  One  was,  that  there  should  be 
no  further  admission  of  any  States  into  this  Union 
which  permitted,  by  their  constitutions,  the  existence 
of  slavery;  the  other  was,  that  slavery  shall  not  here- 
after exist  in  any  of  the  territories  of  the  United 
States;   the  effect  of  which  would  be  to  give  to  tiie 


JOHN    C.    CALnOUN. 


11? 


non-slaveholding  states  the  monopoly  of  the  public 
domain  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  the  slave-holding 
States.     .     .     • 

Sir,  there  is  no  mistaking  the  signs  of  the  times; 
and  it  is  high  time  that  the  Southern  States-the  slave- 
holding  States  should  inquire  what  is  now  their  rela- 
tive strength  in  this  Union,  and  what  it  will  be  if  this 
determination  should  be  carried  into  effect.  Already 
we  are  in  the  minority,  .     .     except  in  the  Senate 

of  the  United  States.  .  .  .  There  are  228  represen- 
tatives, including  Iowa,  which  is  already  represented 
there.  Of  these,  138  are  from  non-slave-holding  States, 
and  90  are  from  what  are  called  the  slave  States— giv- 
ing a  majority,  in  the  aggregate,  to  the  former  of  48. 
In  the  electoral  college  there  are  168  votes  belonging  to 
the  non-slave-holding  states  and  118  to  the  slave  hold- 
ing, giving  a  majority  of  5!)  to  the  non-slave  holding. 

And  this  equality  in  this  body  is  one  of  the  most 
transient  character.  Already  Iowa  is  a  state;  .  . 
When  she  appears  here,  there  will  be  an  addi- 
tion of  two  senators  to  the  representatives  here  of  the 
non-slave  holding  States.  Already  Wisconsin  has 
passed  the  initiatory  stage,  and  will  be  here  the  next 
session.  This  will  add  two  more,  making  a  clear  major- 
ity of  four  in  this  body  on  the  side  of  the  non-slave 
holding  States,  who  will  thus  be  enabled  to  sway  every 
branch  of  this  government  at  their  will  and  pleasure. 

Sir,  there  is  ample  space  for  twelve  or  fifteen  of  r.he 
largest  description  of  States  in  the  territories  belong- 
ing to  the  United  States.     .     .     . 

Sir,  if  this  state  of  things  is  to  go  on— if  this  deter- 
mination so  solemnly  made,  is  to  be  persisted  in,  where 
shall  we  stand  as  far  as  this  federal  government  of  ours 
is  concerned?  WTe  shall  be  at  the  entire  mercy  of  the 
non  slaveholding  States.     .      .      . 

Sir,  the  day  that  the  balance  between  the  two  sec- 
tions of  the  country— the  slaveholding  States  and  the 
non-slaveholding  States— is  destroyed,  is  a  day  that  will 
not  be  far  removed  from  political  revolution,  anarchy, 
civil  war,  and  widespread  disaster.  .     . 

How,  then,  do  we  stand  in  reference  to  this  territor- 


118  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

ial  question— this  public  domain  of  ours?  Why,  sir, 
what  is  it?  It  is  the  common  property  of  the  states  of 
this  Union  They  are  called  "the  territories  of  the 
United  States."  And  what  are  the  "United  States  but 
the  States  united  "?  Sir,  these  territories  are  the  prop- 
erty of  the  states  united;  held  jointly  for  their  common 
use. 

Sir,  here  let  me  say  a  word  as  to  the  compromise 
line.  I  have  always  considered  it  a  great  error— highly 
injurious  to  the  South,  .  .  .  Yet  I  would  have  been 
willing  to  acquiesce  in  a  continuation  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  in  order  to  preserve,  under  the  present 
trying  circumstances,  the  peace  of  the  country. 

I  see  my  way  in  the  Constitution;  I  cannot  in  a  com- 
promise. A  compromise  is  but  an  act  of  Congress.  It 
may  be  overruled  at  any  time.  It  gives  us  no  security. 
But  the  constitution  is  stable.     It  is  a  rock. 

Let  us  be  done  with  compromises.  Let  us  go  back 
and  stand  upon  the  Constitution. 

I  am  a  planter — a  cotton-planter.  I  am  a  Southern 
man  and  a  slave  holder — a  kind  and  a  merciful  one— I 
trust — and  none  the  worse  for  being  a  slave  holder.  I 
say,  for  one,  I  would  rather  meet  any  extremity  upon 
earth  than  give  up  one  inch  of  our  equality— one  inch 
of  what  belongs  to  us  as  members  of  this  great  repub- 
lic! What!  acknowledge  inferiority!  The  surrender 
of  life  is  nothing  to  sinking  down  into  acknowledged 
inferiority!     .     .     . 

He  ends  his  speech  with  these  resolutions: 
Resolved,  that  the  territories  of  the  United  States 
belong  to  the  several  states  composing  this  Union,  and 
are  held  by  them  as  their  joint  and  common  property. 

"Resolved,  That  the  enactment  of  any  law,  which 
should  directly,  or  by  its  effects,  deprive  the  citizens 
of  any  of  the  States  of  this  Union  from  emigrating 
with  their  property,  into  any  of  the  territories  of  the 
United  States,  will  make  such  discriminations,  and 
would,  therefore,  be  a  violation  of  the  Constitution 
and  the  rights  of  the  States  from  which  such  citizens 
emigrated,  and  in  derrogation  of  that  perfect  equality 
which  belongs  to  them  as  members  of  this  Union— and 


JOHN    C.    CALHOUN.  119 

would  tend  directly  to  subvert  the  Union  itself.  .  .  « 
Calhoun  Works,  IV.,  p.  340,  341,  342,  343,  344,  345, 
346,  347,  348. 

His  views  on  the  acquisition  of  territory 
stand  out  clearly  in  these  extracts,  made  from 
a  speech  of  January  4,  1848: 

"Resolved,  That,  to  conquer  Mexico,  and  to  hold  it- 
either  as  a  province  or  to  incorporate  it  in  the  Union 
would  be  inconsistent  with  the  avowed  object  for  which 
the  war  has  been  prosecuted;  a  departure  from  the  set- 
tled policy  of  the  government;  in  conflict  with  its  char- 
acter and  genius;  and,  in  the  end,  subversive  of  our 
free  and  popular  institutions! 

"Resolved,  That  no  line  of  policy  in  the  further  pros- 
ecution of  the  war  should  be  adopted  which  may  lead 
to  consequences  so  disastrous. "... 

He  proceeds  with  the  discussion,  after  read- 
ing the  above  resolutions: 

The  next  reason  assigned  is,  that  either  holding  Mex- 
ico as  a  province,  or  incorporating  her  into  the  Union, 
would  be  unprecedented  by  any  example  in  our  history. 
We  have  conquered  many  of  the  neighboring  tribes  of 
Indians,  but  we  have  never  thought  of  holding  them  in 
subjection,  or  of  incorporating  them  into  our  Union. 
They  have  been  left  as  an  independent  people  in  the 
midst  of  us,  or  been  driven  back  into  the  forest.  Nor 
have  we  ever  incorporated  into  the  Union  any  but  the 
Caucasian  race.  To  incorporate  Mexico  would  be  the 
first  departure  of  the  kind ;  for  more  than  half  of  its 
population  are  pure  Indians,  and  by  far  the  larger  por- 
tion of  the  residue  mixed  blood.  I  protest  against  the 
incorporation  of  such  a  people.  Ours  is  the  govern- 
ment of  the  white  man.     .     .     . 

The  next  remaining  reasons  assigned,  that  it  would 
be  in  conflict  with  the  genius  and  character  of  our  gov- 
ernment, and,  in  the  end,  subversive  of  our  free  institu- 
tions, are  intimately  connected,  and  I  shall  consider 
them  together. 

That  it  would  be  contrary  to  the  genius  and  charac- 
ter of  our  government,  and  subversive  of  our  free  pop- 
ular institutions,  to  hold  Mexico  as  a  subject  province, 


120  AMERICAN  HISTORY  STUDIES. 

is  a  proposition  too  clear  for  argument  before  a  body  so 
enlightened  as  the  Senate.  You  know  the  American 
Constitution  too  well,  you  have  looked  into  history, 
and  are  too  well  acquainted  with  the  fatal  effects  which 
large  provincial  possessions  have  ever  had  on  institu- 
tions of  free  States,— to  need  any  proof  to  satisfy  you 
how  hostile  it  vrould  be  to  the  institutions  of  this  coun- 
try to  hold  Mexico  as  a  subject  province.  There  is  not 
an  example  on  record  of  any  free  State  holding  a  prov- 
ince of  the  same  extent  and  population  without  disas- 
trous consequences.  The  nations  conquered  and  held 
as  a  province,  have,  in  time,  retalliated  by  destroying 
She  liberty  of  their  conquerors,  through  the  corrupting 
effects  of  extended  patronage  and  irresponsible  power. 
Such,  certainly,  would  be  our  case.  The  conquest  of 
Mexico  would  add  so  vastly  to  the  patronage  of  this 
government,  that  it  would  absorb  the  whole  powers  of 
the  State ;  the  Union  would  become  an  imperial  power 
and  the  states  reduced  to  mere  subordinate  corpora- 
tions. But  the  evil  would  not  end  there;  the  process 
would  go  on,  and  the  power  transferred  from  the  States 
to  the  Union  would  be  transferred  from  the  legislative 
department  to  the  executive.  All  the  immense  patron- 
age, which  holding  it  as  a  province  would  create,  the 
maintenance  of  a  large  army  to  hold  it  in  subjection, 
and  the  appointment  of  a  multitude  of  civil  officers 
necessary  to  govern  it,  would  be  vested  in  him.  The 
great  influence  which  it  would  give  the  president, 
would  be  the  means  of  controling  the  legislative  depart- 
ment, and  subjecting  it  to  his  dictation,  especially  when 
combined  with  the  principle  of  proscription  which  has 
now  become  the  established  practice  of  the  government. 
The  struggle  to  obtain  the  presidential  chair  would  be- 
come proportionally  great — so  great  as  to  destroy  the 
freedom  of  elections.  The  end  would  be  anarchy  or 
despotism,  as  certain  as  I  am  now  addressing  the  Senate. 


Nor  are  the  reasons  less  weighty  against  incorporat- 
ing her  into  the  Union.  As  far  as  law  is  concerned, 
this  is  easily  done.  All  that  is  necessary  is  to  establish 
a  territorial  government  for  the  several  states  in 
Mexico, — of  which  there  are  upwards  of  twenty,  — to 
appoint  governors,  judges,  and  magistrates,  — and  to 
give  to  the  population  a  subordinate  right  of  making 


JOHN    C.    CALHOUN.  121 


laws,  we  defraying  the  cost  of  the  government.  So  far 
as  legislation  goes,  the  work  will  be  done;  but  there 
would  be  a  great  difference  between  the  territorial 
government,  and  those  which  we  have  heretofore 
established  within  our  own  limits.  These  are  only  the 
offsets  of  our  own  people,  or  foreigners  from  the  same 
countries  from  which  our  ancestors  came. 
During  the  period  of  their  territorial  government,  no 
force  is  necessary  to  keep  them  in  a  state  of  subjection. 
The  case  will  be  entirely  different  from  these  Mexican 
territories;  when  you  form  them,  you  must  have  pow- 
erful armies  to  hold  them  in  subjection,  with  all  the  ex- 
penses incident  in  supporting  them.  You  may  call  them 
territories,  but  they  would,  in  reality,  be  but  provinces 
under  another  name,  and  would  involve  the  country  in 
all  the  difficulties  and  dangers  which  I  have  already 
shown  would  result  from  holding  the  country  in  that 
condition.  How  long  this  state  of  things  would  last, 
before  they  would  be  fitted  to  be  incorporated  into  the 
Union  as  States,  we  may  form  some  idea,  from  similar 
instances,  with  which  we  are  familiar. — Ibid.,  pp. 
396,  410,  411,  412,    4U,  415. 

QUESTIONS. 

(1)  What  did  Calhoun  think  of  war?  (2)  Did  he  be- 
lieve in  ' '  bluff  "  ?  (3  What  effects  did  it  produce  ?  (4) 
What  causes  did  he  believe  we  had  for  war  against 
England?  (5)  Compare  the  causes  he  gives  with  those 
given  in  previous  studies  by  Clay,  by  Webster.  (6)  Com- 
pare the  style  of  setting  forth  these  causes  by  the  three 
men.  (7)  'Which  was  the  most  effective?  18)  What 
objections  had  been  made  to  the  war.  (9)  Find  out  who 
had  made  these  objections.  (10)  What  did  he  think 
about  the  responsibility  of  minorities?  (11)  Do  you 
agree?  (12)  How  did  he  believe  the  war  should  be  car- 
ried on?  (13;  Make  an  outline  covering  his  speeches  on 
the  war. 

(1)  What  would  you  say  Calhoun  was,  judged  by  his 
tariff  speech,  and  his  speech  on  the  bank,  a  nationalist 
or  a  states  rights'  man?  (2)  Give  all  your  proofs  for 
your  opinion.  (3)  How  did  Calhoun  look  at  industrial 
life  if  it  was  to  be  the  most  beneficial?  (4)  What  did 
he  believe  caused  the  depreciation  of  the  paper  money  ? 
(5)  What  kind  of  money  did  he  advocate?  (6)  Were 
the  views  expressed  in  his  speeches  of  1816  in  harmony 
with  his  later  speeches? 

(1)  What  view  did  he  take  on  the  right  of  petition? 

(2)  Compare  his  arguments  with  those  of  J.  Q.  Adani3. 

(3)  Summarize  his  arguments.  (4)  How  did  he  regard 
the  abolitionists?  (5)  How  did  he  hold  that  they  vio- 
lated the  Constitution?  -6  Could  slavery  and  the  right 
of  petition  both  exist  at  the  same  time?  (7)  What 
rights  had  Congress  over  the  subject  of  slavery  accord- 

9 


122  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

ing  to  Calhoun  ?  (8)  Compare  his  position  with  Clay'a 
on  this  question;  with  Websters.  (9)  What  was  the 
South 's  Thermopylae? 

(1)  What  was  the  relation  between  Calhoun  and  Jack- 
sOnin  1837?  (2)  Find  out  the  reason  for  this  feeling. 
(3)  What  charges  had  Calhoun  made  against  Jackson's 
order  for  the  "  removal  of  the  deposits  "  ?  (4)  Find  out 
about  the  "removal of  the  deposits."  (51  Did  Calhoun 
recede  from  his  position  ?  (6)  Compare  his  feeling  for 
Jackson  with  the  feelings  of  Clay  and  Webster  towards 
him.  (7)  Explain  so  much  ill-will  among  our  great 
fciexz. 

(1*)  What  international  rights  did  Calhoun  claim  for 
slavery?  (2)  If  his  position  was  true  what  was  the 
legal  difference  between  a  slave  and  a  bale  of  cotton  ? 
(3)  Try  to  find  out  whether  he  was  technically  right  or 
not.  (4)  What  view  did  Webster  take  of  the  question? 
(5 1  Outline  his  arguments  on  the  question. 

(1)  To  what  party  did  he  belong  in  1837?  (2)  What 
danger  did  he  think  he  saw  that  he  was  opposing? 

(1)  What  did  he  affirm  was  the  nature  of  the  Consti- 
tution? (2)  Who  was  to  be  the  final  judge  in  cases  of 
infraction  of  the  Constitution?  (3)  Compare  his  views 
with  Websters.  (4)  What  did  he  hold  in  regard  to  the 
right  of  one  state  to  interfere  or  intermeddle  in  the 
affairs  of  another?  (5)  What  did  he  consider  intermed- 
dling? (6)  Did  he  still  love  the  Union?  (7)  Was  there 
anything  of  more  importance?  (8)  To  what  did  he 
compare  Abolitionism?  (9)  Hunt  out  his  predictions. 
(10)  Were  they  fulfilled?  (11)  How  did  he  define  the 
States  Rights'  view.  (12)  How  did  he  feel  in  regard  to 
the  non-extension  of  slavery  into  the  territories?  (13) 
Trace  the  effect  on  the  Union  of  an  unequal  number  of 
states — free  and  slave.  (14)  Give  his  argument  in  re- 
gard to  rights  in  the  territory.  (15)  If  you  had  lived 
in  the  South  at  the  time  how  would  you  probably  have 
felt?  (16)  What  did  he  believe  in  regard  to  compro- 
mise? 

(1)  What  did  he  think  about  the  results  of  the  acqui- 
sition of  territory?  (2)  Compare  his  views  with  Clay's, 
with  Webster's  on  this  subject.  (3)  What  reasons  does 
he  assign?  (4)  Are  they  applicable  to-day?  (5)  Sum- 
marize his  arguments.  (6)  What  answer  call  you  give 
to  his  arguments?  (7)  Make  a  diagram  to  show  the 
arguments  of  Clay,  Webster,  and  Calhoun  in  regard  to 
the  subject  of  expansion. 

(1)  Write  a  paper  or  a  series  of  papers  comparing 
these  three  great  men.  (2)  Which  do  you  like  best  and 
why? 


CHARLES  SUMNER 


A  native  of  Massachusetts,  1811.  Graduate  of 
Harvard.  A  lawyer.  Visited  Europe,  1836-1837. 
Senator,  1851-1872.  Great  oration  on  "  Peace," 
1845.  Speech  on  "  The  Crime  against  Kansas," 
1856.  Attacked  by  Brooks  in  Senate,  1856.  An 
invalid  as  result,  1856-1S60.  Opposed  San 
Domingo  treaty,  1870.  Supported  Greeley  for 
President,  1872.    Died,  1872. 


CHAPTER  VI 

CHARLES  SUMNER 

IN  leaving  Clay,  Calhoun,  and  Webster,  and 
in  taking  up  the  life  of  Sumner  we  find 
ourselves  in  a  new  environment,  in  a  new 
atmosphere.  Clay  and  Webster  had  stood  for 
the  Union  above  all  things  else.  They  were 
ready  to  compromise  when  questions  appeared 
that  seemed  to  endanger  their  beloved  Union. 
I  believe  it  may  also  be  said  that  the  "Great 
Nullifier"  was  such  for  the  very  reason  that 
he,  too,  loved  the  Union.  Some  interpretation 
of  the  constitution  must  be  found  that  would 
make  it  possible  for  both  slavery  and  the  Union 
to  exist.  He  hoped  he  had  found  it  in  this  doc- 
trine. If  this  be  a  true  interpretation  of  our 
history,  then  Clay  in  his  Compromises,  Webster 
in  his  Union  speech  of  March  7th,  and  Calhoun 
in  his  Nullification  plans  were  all  aiming  at  the 
same  goal — the  preservation  of  the  Union. 

Now  when  we  turn  to  the  younger  group  of 
statesmen  of  whom  Sumner  is  one  of  the  best 
representatives  from  the  North,  we  find  them 
more  anxious  about  slavery  than  about  the 
Union.  It  may  be  that  they  loved  the  Union 
no  less,  but  at  least  they  were  concerned  about 
slavery  more.  Sumner  was  not,  or  professed 
not  to  be,  an  abolitionist.  Yet  slavery  was  the 
theme  of  nearly  all  his  strongest  thinking.  It 
would  seem  that  his  pen  could  hardly  complete 


CHARLES  SUMNER.  125 

a  letter,  or  indite  an  address  without  discussing 

that  question  in  some  way. 

The  few  pages  at  command  for  this  study 
make  it  impossible  to  illustrate  the  later  years 
of  his  life.  His  voice  and  pen  were  busy  till 
the  end,  and  the  published  volumes  of  his 
speeches  number  fourteen,  while  his  letters,  if 
all  were  gathered  together,  would  make  many 
volumes  more.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  many 
features  of  his  life  can  not  be  touched.  Enough 
can  only  be  hoped  to  be  done  to  arouse  the  de- 
sire to  know  more.  In  such  a  series  of  studies 
as  this  the  southern  statesman  also  should  ap- 
pear; such  men  as  Toombs,  A.  H.  Stephens, 
and  Davis  should  speak  for  their  cause.  We 
are  now  far  enough  away  from  the  scenes  of 
1861  to  be  able  to  admit  that  honesty  of  con- 
victions was  found  on  both  sides  of  Mason  and 
Dixon's  line.  No  true  picture  of  our  country's 
history  can  be  had  till  we  consider  both  sides, 
and  hear  representative  men  of  both  sides 
speak.  At  last  it  may  be  said  that  the  Ameri- 
can people  are  ready  to  listen,  hence  it  may  be 
hoped  that  this  study  will  be  discussed  no  more 
fairly  in  the  North  than  in  the  South.  As  a 
great,  if  an  aggressive  American,  he  has  a 
place  in  our  life,  and  we  must  seek  it,  and 
uialzye  the  problem.  The  latter  can  never  be 
solved,  if  such  men  as  he  be  omitted  from  our 
studies.  Hoping,  then,  for  as  appreciative  a 
reception  for  this  study,  as  for  the  earlier 
ones,  we  will  let  Sumner  tell  us  something  of 
his  life. 

Sumner's  father  wrote  the  following  letter  to 
Mr.  Partridge  in  1826,  when  thinking  of  send- 


126  AMERICAN    HISTORY   STUDIES. 

ing  Charles  to   Partridge's  Military  Academy 
for  a  time: 

.  .  .  I  have  a  son,  named  Charles  Sumner,  in  his 
fifteenth  year,  and  large  of  his  age,  but  not  of  so  firm 
and  solid  a  constitution  as  I  should  wish  to  have  him. 
He  has  no  immoral  practices  or  propensities  known  to 
me;  he  has  acquired  a  pretty  good  knowledge  of  Latin 
and  Greek,  understands  the  fundamental  rules  of  arith- 
metic, and  has  a  superficial  knowledge  of  the  whole. 
He  is  well  acquainted  with  geography  and  history,  both 
ancient  and  modern;  in  fine,  he  has  been  four  years  at 
the  public  Latin  School  in  Boston,  sustaining  a  good 
standing  in  the  class,  which  will  be  qualified  for  ad- 
mission at  Cambridge  College  in  182  ,  for  which  I  do 
not  design  him.  The  life  of  a  scholar  would  be  too  sed- 
entary and  inactive  for  him.  .  .  .  Pierce,  Life  and 
Letters  of  Sumner,  Vol.  1,  pp.  42,  43. 

The  following  letter  from  Sumner,  1829, 
while  a  student  in  Harvard  College,  lets  us  see 
something  of  him  and  of  college  life  of  the  lime: 

.  .  .  Have  told  you  everything  new  in  college 
now.  Everything  here  is  always  the  same— the  same 
invariable  round  of  bells  and  recitations,  of  diggings 
and  of  deads!  Mathematics  piled  on  mathematics! 
Metaphysics  murdered  and  mangled!  Prayer-bells  after 
prayer-beks!  but,  worse  than  all  commons  upon  com- 
mons! Clean,  handsome  plates,  and  poor  food!  By  the 
way,  the  commons  bell  rung  fifteen  minutes  ago.  If  I 
don't  stop,  I  shall  lose  the  invaluable  meal.  Accord- 
ingly, adieu. 

Charles  Sumner. 

N.  B.—  Spars  m b!    Oh,  spare  me!  Eheu  me  miser urn! 

.     .     .     I  arrived  too  late;   lost  my  breakfast;    got   to 

University,  however,  soon  enough  to  be  present  at  one 

of  Follen's  lectures.     '  This  was  the  unkindest  cut  of 

all.'    Again,  adieu. 

C.  S." 

Ibid.,  pp.  51,  52. 

To  classmates,  he  wrote: 

.  .  .  You  would  have  sooner  thought,  I  suppose, 
that  fire  and  water  would  have  embraced  than  mathe- 
matics, and  nrvself  ;   but,  strange  to  tell,  we  are  close 


CHARLES   SUMNER.  127 

friends  now.  I  really  get  geometry  with  some  pleas- 
ure. I  usually  devote  four  hours  in  the  forenoon  to  it. 
I  have  determined  not  to  study  any  profession  this 
year,  and  I  have  marked  out  for  myself  a  course  which 
will  fully  occupy  my  time,— namely,  a  course  of  mathe- 
matics, Juvenal,  Tacitus,  a  course  of  modern  history, 
Hallam's  "Middle  Ages"  and  "Constitutional  His- 
tory," and  Roscoe's  "Leo"  and  "Lorenzo,"  and  Rob- 
ertson's "Charles  V.;"  with  indefinite  quantities  of 
Shakespeare,  Burton,  British  poets,  etc.,  and  writing 
an  indefinite  number  of  long  letters.  .  .  .  Ibid., 
p.  81. 

I  think  of  hitching  upon  the  law  at  Cambridge  this 
coming  commencement.  I  am  greatful  for  the  encour- 
aging word  you  give  me.  I  am  rather  despondent  and 
I  meet  from  none  of  my  family  those  vivifying  expres- 
sions which  a  young  mind  always  accepts.  My  father 
says  nought  by  way  of  encouragement.  He  seems  de- 
termined to  let  me  shape  my  own  course,  so  that  if  I 
am  wise,  I  shall  be  wise  for  myself,  and  if  I  am  foolish, 
I  alone  shall  bear  it.  It  may  be  well  that  this  is  so. 
.     .    .—Memoirs  I,  p.  87. 

His  friend,  W.  W.  Story,  writes  concerning 
Sumner  in  these  words: 

He  was  then,  as  ever  in  after  life,  an  indefatigable 
and  omnivorous  student.  He  lived  simply,  was  guilty 
of  no  excesses  of  any  kind,  went  very  little  into  society, 
and  devoted  his  days  and  nights  to  books.  Of  all  men 
I  knew  at  his  age,  he  was  the  least  susceptible  to  the 
charms  of  women  Men  he  liked  best  and  with  them  he 
preferred  to  talk.  It  was  in  vain  that  the  lovliest  and 
livliest  tried  to  absorb  his  attention.  .  .  This  was  a 
constant  source  of  amusement  to  us,  and  we  used  to  lay 
wagers  with  the  pretty  girls,  that  with  all  their  arts 
they  could  not  keep  him  at  their  side  a  quarter  of  an 
hour.  .  .  Though  he  was  an  interesting  talker  he 
had  no  lightness  of  hand.  .  .  He  had  no  humor  him- 
self, and  little  sense  of  it  in  others;  and  his  jests  when 
he  tried  to  make  one,  were  rather  cumbrous.  .  . 
Ibid.,  p.  107. 

To  his  friend  Charlemagne  Tower,  he  wrote? 


128  AMERICAN    HISTORY   STUDIES. 

.  Tower,  we  have  struck  the  true  profession*, 
the  cne  in  which  the  mind  is  the  most  sharpened  and 
quickened,  and  the  duties  of  which  properly  discharged, 
are  the  most  vital  to  the  interests  of  the  country,— for 
religion  exists  independent  of  its  ministers;  every 
breast  feels  it:  but  the  law  lives  only  in  the  honesty  and 
earning  of  lawyers.     .     .     — Ibid.,  p.  111. 

Dr.  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes  wrote  of  Sumner 
in  these  words: 

.  .  .  He  had  already  a  name  for  scholarship,  es- 
pecially for  legal  knowledge.  He  was  an  amiable,  sim- 
ple-hearted, blameless  young  man;  pleasant,  affcable, 
cheerful,  with  little  imagination,  wit,  or  sense  of 
humor.  I  remember  Park  Benjamin  said  of  him,  in  his 
rather  extravagant  way,  that,  if  one  told  Charles  Sum- 
ner that  the  moon  was  made  of  green  cheese,  he  would 
controvert  the  alleged  fact  in  all  sincerity,  and  give 
good  reason  why  it  could  not  be  so.  .  .  . — Memoirs 
1,  p.  164. 

.  .  .  That  is  a  glorious  document  [Jackson's  Proc- 
lamation] worthy  of  any  President.  Our  part  of  the 
country  rejoices  in  it  as  a  true  exposition  of  the  Consti- 
tution, and  a  fervid  address  to  those  wayward  men 
who  are  now  plunging  us  into  disgrace  abroad  and 
misery  at  home.     .    .     .     Memoirs  I,  p.  117. 

In  a  letter  to  his  parents,  written  from  Wash- 
ington in  1834,  he  spoke  of  his  first  view  of 
slavery  as  follows: 

.  .  .  For  the  first  time  I  saw  slaves,  and  my  worst 
preconception  of  their  appearance  and  ignorance  did 
not  fall  as  low  as  their  actual  stupidity.  They  appear 
to  be  nothing  more  than  moving  masses  of  flesh,  unen- 
dowed with  anything  above  the  intelligence  of  the 
brutes.  I  have  now  an  idea  of  the  blight  upon  that 
part  of  our  country  in  which  they  live.     .     .     . 

.  .  .  Calhoan  has  given  notice  today  that  he  will 
speak  tomorrow  on  Mr.  Webster's  bank-bill.  I  shall 
probably  hear  him,  and  he  will  be  the  last  man  I  shall 
ever  hear  speak  m  Washington.  I  probably  shall  never 
come  here  again.  I  have  little  or  no  desire  ever  to  come 
again  in  any  capacity.     Nothing  that  I  have  seen  of 


CHARLES    SUMNER. 


129 


politics  has  made  me  look  upon  them  with  any  feeling 
other  than  loathing.  .  .  .  Ibid.,  pp.  134,  U^ 
To  Francis  Lieber,  January  9,  1836: 
.  .  .  You  are  in  the  midst  of  slavery,  seated  among 
its  whirling  eddies  blown  around  as  they  are  by  the 
blasts  of  Governor  McDuffie,  fiercer  than  any  from  the 
old  wind-bags  of  iEolus.  What  think  you  of  it? 
Should  it  longer  exist?  Is  not  emancipation  practi- 
cable? We  are  becoming  Abolitionists  at  the  North 
fast;  the  riots,  the  attempts  to  abridge  the  freedom  of 
discussion,  Governor  McDuffie's  message,  and  the  con- 
duct of  the  South  generally  have  caused  many  to  think 
favorably  of  immediate  emancipation  who  never  before 
inclined  to  it.    .    .     .    Memoirs  I,  p.  173. 

He  wrote  on  December  7,  1837,  to  W.  F. 
Frick,  the  following  words  concerning  the  study 
of  law.     In  part,  he  said: 

.  .  .  Pursue  the  law,  then,  as  a  science;  study  it 
in  books;  and  let  the  results  of  your  studies  ripen  from 
meditation  and  conversation  in  your  own  mind.  Make 
it  a  rule  never  to  pass  a  sentence  or  phrase  or  proposi- 
tion which  you  do  not  understand.  .  .  .  There  are 
few,  I  flatter  myself,  who  are  more  disposed  than  I  am 
to  view  the  law  as  a  coherent  collection  of  principles 
rather  than  a  bundle  of  cases.  With  me,  cases  are  the 
exponents  of  principles;  and  I  would  have  you  read  them 
in  order  to  understand  the  principles  of  the  law  and  the 
grounds  of  them.  The  best  way,  therefore,  of  reading 
them  is  in  connection  with  some  text-book,  following 
the  different  references  in  the  margin  to  their  sources, 
and  thus  informing  yourself  of  the  reasons  by  which 
the  principles  are  supported.     .     .     . 

The  most  important  cases,  in  which  some  principle 
has  first  been  evolved  or  first  received  a  novel  applica- 
tion, are  called  '*  leading  cases,"  and  all  these  should 
be  read  with  great  attention.     .    .     . 

...  I  need  hardly  add  to  these  desultory  recom- 
mendations that  you  cannot  read  history  too  much, 
particularly  that  of  England  and  the  United  States. 
History  is  the  record  of  human  conduct  and  experience, 
and  it  is  to  this  that  jurisprudence  is  applied.  More- 
over, in  the  English  history  is  to  be  found  the  grad-. 


130  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

ual  development  of  that  portion  of  the  common  law 
which  is  called  the  Constitution — for  the  British  Con- 
stitution stands  chiefly  on  the  common  law.  Th«  his- 
tary  of  legislation  in  England  contains  the  origin, 
also,  of  portions  of  the  Constitution.  History  is  of 
itself  such  a  fascinating  study  that  it  can  need  to  your 
mind  no  such  feeble  recommendation  as  mine.  .  . 
Memoirs  I,  pp.  207,  208. 

December  25,  1837,  he  ended  his  journal  of 
that  day,  which  he  kept  during  his  first  visit  to 
Europe,  in  these  words  : 

.  .  .  May  I  return  with  an  undiminished  love  for 
my  friends  and  country,  with  a  heart  and  mind  un- 
tainted by  the  immoralities  of  the  Old  World,  man- 
ners untouched  by  its  affectations,  and  a  willingness  to 
resume  my  labors  with  an  unabated  determination  to 
devote  myself  faithfully  to  the  duties  of  an  American? 
.    .    .    16  id,  p.  214. 

From  Boston,  a  few  months  after  his  return 
to  America,  he  wrote  to  a  London  friend  as 
follows: 

Our  politics  are  shabby  enough.  The  Whigs,  consti- 
tuting the  opposition,  have  nominated  for  the  Presi- 
dency, the  person  whose  head  adorns  a  corner  of  this 
sheet.  He  has  in  his  favor  his  good  conduct  during 
the  war  of  1812,  and  an  alleged  victory  at  Tippecanoe; 
and  the  vulgar  appeal  is  made,  grounded  on  military 
success.  This  has  made  him  a  more  acceptable  candi- 
date than  Clay  or  Webster,  who  have  been  serving  the 
State  well  for  years.     .    .     . 

An  Administration  paper  alluded  to  him  as  living  in 
a  log-cabin  and  drinking  hard-cider.  The  Whigs  at 
once  adopted  these  words  and  placed  them  on  their 
f  avora.  They  proclaimed  Harrison  the  candidate  of  the 
"logvaabin  and  hard  cider"  class.  And  this  vulgar 
appeal  is  made  by  the  party  professing  the  monopoly  of 
intelligence  and  education  in  the  country!  But  it  has 
had  its  effect.  The  country  seems  revolutionized,  and 
the  Whigs  are  confident.  .  .  .—Pierce  Memoirs* 
Vol  II,  pp.  165,  m, 


CHARLES   SUMNER.  131 

A  few  months  later  he  wrote: 
I  fear  the  coming  six  months  will  be  a  perfect  Sat- 
urnalia in  our  poor  country;  the  Whigs,  elated  with 
success,  hungry  by  abstinence  from  office  for  twelve 
years,  and  goaded  by  the  recollection  of  ancient  wrongs, 
will  push  their  victory  to  the  utmost.     Of  course  the 
example  set  by  Jackson  will  be  followed;  and  perhaps 
improved  upon;   there  will  be  a  geneial  turnout  of  all 
present  office-holders  at  home  and  abroad;  the  war  ot 
parties  will  have  new  venom.     .      .      .     There  is  so 
much  passion,  and  so  little  principle  so  much  devotion 
to  party,  and  so  little  to  country  in  both  parties;  that 
I  think  we  have  occasion  for  deep  anxiety.     .     .     . 
The  Whi-s  have  met  with  their  present  surprising  and 
most  unexpected  success  by  means  of  their  low  appeals 
to  hard-cider,  log-cabins  and  the  like.     .     .     i     J-Oid., 
p.  168. 

In  this  extract  from  a  letter  to  Jacob  Harvey, 
we  see  something  of  the  ideas  that  now  begin 
to  ferment  in  Stunners'  brain,  1842: 

I  agree  with  you  entirely  with  regard  to  the  ' '  Creole  " 
affair,  except,  perhaps,  that  I  go  farther  than  you  do. 
In  the  first  place,  England  cannot  deliver  up  the 
slaves  who  are  not  implicated  in  the  mutiny  and  mur- 
der by  which  the  government  of  the  ship  was  over- 
thrown. She  laid  down  a  rule  not  to  recognize  property 
in  human  beings  since  the  date  of  her  great  Emancipa- 
tion Act.  The  principle  of  this  is  very  clear,  one  will 
not  in  any  way  lend  her  machinery  of  justice  to  exe- 
cute foreign  laws  which  she  has  pronounced  immoral, 
unchristian  and  unjust.  She  had  not  so  pronounced 
until  her  act  of  Emancipation.     .     .     - 

Slavery  is  not  a  national  institution;  nor  is  it  one 
recognized  by  the  law  of  nations.  It  is  peculiar  to 
certain  states.  It  draws  its  vitality  from  the  legisla- 
tion of  those  States.  Now,  this  legislation  is  of  course 
limited  to  those  states.     .     .     .     Ibid.,  pp.  199,  £00. 

To  his  brother  George  he  wrote,  April  1, 

1842: 

Dr.  Channing  has  put  forth  a  glorious  pamphlet  on 
the  'Creole,'  in  reply  to  Webster's  sophistical  despatch. 


132  AMERICAN   HISTORY  STUDIES. 

One  feels  proud  of  being  a  countryman  of  Channing 
His  spirit  is  worthy  of  the  Republic,  and  does  us  honor 
abroad.  He  is  a  noble  elevation,  which  makes  the 
pulses  throb.  The  paltry  uncertain,  shifting  princi- 
ples of  Webster's  letter  are  unworthy  of  him.  The 
question  of  slavery  is  getting  to  be  the  absorbing  one 
among  us;  and  growing  out  of  this  is  that  other  of  the 
Union.  People  now  talk  about  the  value  of  the  Union, 
and  the  North  has  begun  to  return  the  taunts  of  the 
South.     .     .     . 

The  treaty  is  concluded,  and  peace  now  smiles  over 
the  two  countries.  .  .  Webster,  it  is  presumed, 
will  resign  his  office;  but  nobody  can  tell  what  he  will 
do.  He  is  deeply  in  debt,  and  with  habits  that  will 
now  render  professional  exertion  irksome.  From  his 
fate  we  may  learn  that  office  is  not  worth  seeking.  — 
Memoirs  II,  %>.  205,  221. 

To  Dr.  Samuel  G.  Howe,  he  wrote,  May  31, 
1844,  in  this  language: 

.  .  .  The  junction  between  Clay  and  Webster, 
strengtheas  the  Whig  cause.  I  can  not  doubt  that  Clay 
will  be  elected.  Tyler's  weakness  has  become  wicked- 
ness. He  is  governed  by  prejudice,  selfishness,  and 
vanity— playing  with  the  great  powers  of  the  State, 
confided  to  him  in  sacred  trust  for  the  good  of  all,  with 
a  view  only  to  what  he  supposes  his  individual  interest, 
and  sacrificing  men  and  measures  as  if  they  were 
pawns.  Oh!  When  will  vulgar  selfishness  be  cast 
down  and  trodden  under  foot,  and  when  shall  we  find 
rulers  whose  eyes  will  be  placed  singly  on  the  good  of 
humanity?  The  Texas  treaty  will  be  rejected  by  the 
Senate.     .     .     . 

Let  us  put  an  iron  heel  upon  the  serpent  of  religious 
bigotry,  trying  to  hug  our  schools  in  its  insidious  coils. 

.     ,     Memoirs  II,  p.  S07. 

To  Horace  Mann,  he  wrote,  in  1845: 

...  We  have  learned  from  you  the  priceless 
value  of  the  common  schools.  You  have  taught  us 
most  especially  that  the  conservation  of  republican  in- 
stitutions depends  on  the  knowledge  and  virtue  />f  the 
people.  You  have  taught  us,  by  most  interesting  de- 
tails and  considerations,  that  the  wealth  of  the  country 


CHARLES  SUMNER.  133 

is  augmented,  and  that  the  arm  of  its  industry  is 
nerved,  in  proportion  to  the  diffusion  of  knowledge;  so 
that  each  humble  schoolhouse  is  to  be  regarded,  not 
only  as  a  nursery  of  souls,  but  a  mine  of  riches.  .  . 
.     Memoirs ,  II,  p.  325. 

To  his  brother  George,  in  November,  1845: 

The  spirit  of  Antislavery  promises  soon  to  absorb  all 
New  England.  Massachusetts  will  never  give  her 
vote  for  another  slaveholder.  The  cotton  lords  will 
interfere,  but  they  will  at  last  be  borne  away  by  the 
rising  tide;  but  this  cannot  be  immediately.  You  will 
be  at  home,  and  an  actor  in  the  conflict  that  approaches 

In  the  Free  Soil  Convention,  in  Massachu- 
setts, in  1849,  he  said,  in  part: 

The  efforts  to  place  the  nat'onal  government  on  the 
side  of  freedom  have  received  little  sympathy  from  cor- 
porations, or  from  persons  largely  interested  in  them, 
but  have  rather  encountered  their  opposition,  some- 
times concealed,  sometimes  open,  often  bitter  and  vin- 
dictive. It  :«3  easy  to  explain  this.  In  corporations  is 
the  money-power  of  the  Commonwealth.  Thus  far  the 
instincts  of  property  have  proved  stronger  in  Massachu- 
setts than  the  instinct  of  freedom.  The  money-power 
has  joined  hands  with  the  slave-power.  Selfish,  grasp- 
ing, subtile,  tyrannical,  like  its  ally,  it  will  not  brook 
opposition.  It  claims  the  Commonwealth  as  its  own,  and 
too  successfully  enlists  in  its  support,  that  needy  tal- 
ent and  easy  virtue  which  are  required  to  maintain  its 
sway.—  Memoirs,  Vol.  HI,  p.  187. 

In  1850  he  wrote: 

The  Slavery  question  has  become  paramount  here  at 
last.  The  Slave  states  threaten  to  dissolve  the  Union 
if  Slavery  is  prohibited  by  Congress  in  the  new  terri- 
tories or  abolished  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  I  trust 
that  Congress  will  do  its  duty,  regardless  of  threats. 
What  the  results  may  be  it  is  impossible  to  determine. 
.     .     .    Memoirs  III,  p.  211. 

To  William  Jay,  March  23,  1S50: 

I  thank  you  very  much  for  writing  that  letter  on  Mr. 
Webster's  speech.  It  will  be  read  extensively,  and 
will  do  great  good.     You  expose  his  inconsistency  and 


134  AMERICAN  HISTORY  STUDIES. 

turpitude  in  a  manner  that  must  sink  into  the  soul  of 
the  great  apostate.  Horace  Mann  writes  that  all  of  the 
Northern  Whigs  out  of  the  three  great  cities  are 
against  that  speech.—  Ibi d.,  p.  213. 

In  his  Faneuil  Hall  speech  of  1850,  he  used 
these  words: 

.  .  .  We  are  told  that  the  Slavery  question  is  set- 
tled. Yes,  settled,  settled,— that  is  the  word.  Nothing, 
sir,  can  be  settled  which  is  not  right.  Nothing  can  be  set- 
tled which  is  against  freedom.  Nothing  can  be  set- 
tled which  is  against  the  divine  law.  God,  nature, 
and  all  the  holy  sentiments  of  the  heart  repudiate  any 
such  false-seeming  settlement. — Ibid.,  p.  229. 

To  John  Bigelow,  he  wrote,  January  21,  1851: 
.  .  .  The  charge  used  with  most  effect  against  me 
is  that  I  am  a  "disunionist;"  but  the  authors  of  this 
know  its  falsehood— it  is  all  a  sham  to  influence  voters. 
My  principles  are,  in  the  words  of  Franklin,  '  to  step 
to  the  verge  of  the  Constitution  to  discourage  every 
species  of  traffic  in  human  flesh."  I  am  a  constitu- 
tionalist and  a  unionist,  and  have  always  been.—  Ibid., 
pp.  239- k0. 

To  Geo.  Sumner,  1851: 

On  the  tariff  I  am  absolutely  uncommitted.  Mr. 
Henry  Cabot,  an  old  manufacturer,  told  me  yesterday 
that  he  and  others  were  satisfied  that  'protection  was 
a  fallacy;'  and  that  William  Appleton  had  said  that 
his  vote  could  not  be  had  for  a  change  in  the  present 
tariff.  Mr.  Cabot  thought  the  subject  would  not  come 
up  in  the  next  session.—  Ibid.,  p.  254. 

Concerning  Kossuth,  he  wrote,  in  18-52: 

Kossuth  produces  a  great  impression  by  personal 
presence  and  speech,  but  confesses  that  his  mission  has 
failed.  It  failed  under  bad  counsels,  from  his  asking 
too  much.  .  .  .  When  the  time  comes  that  we  can 
strike  a  blow  for  any  good  cause  I  shall  be  ready;  but 
meanwhile  our  true  policy  is  s}Tmpathy  with  the  liberal 
movement  everywhere,  and  this  declared  without 
mincing  or  reserve.     .     .     . 

My  desire  was  to  welcome  him  warmly  and  sympa- 
thetically but  at  the  same  time  to  hold  fast  to  the 
pacific  policy  of  our  country.  —Ibid. ,  p.  271. 


CHARLES   SUMNER.  135 

After  moving  the  following  amendments  to 
the  appropriation  bill: 

Provided  that  no  such  allowance  shall  be  author- 
ized for  any  expense  incurred  for  executing  the  Act  of 
September  18,  1850,  for  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from 
service  or  labor,  which  said  Act  is  hereby  repealed. 

He  began  his  first  great  speech  in  the  Senate 
in  these  words: 

And  now  at  last,  among  these  final  crowded  days  of 
our  duties  here,  but  at  this  earliest  opportunity  I  am  to 
be  heard, — not  as  a  favor,  but  as  a. right.  The  grace- 
ful usages  of  this  body  may  be  abandoned,  but  the 
established  privileges  of  debate  cannot  be  abridged;  par- 
liamentary courtesy  may  be  forgotten,  but  parliamen- 
tary law  must  prevail.  The  subject  is  broadly  before 
the  Senate;  by  the  blessings  of  God  it  shall  be  dis- 
cussed.    .     .     . 

And  now,  sir,  let  us  interview  the  field  over  which 
we  have  passed.  We  have  seen  that  any  compromise, 
finally  disclosing  the  discussion  of  slavery  under  the 
Constitution,  is  tyrannical,  absurd  and  impotent;  that 
as  slavery  can  exist  only  by  virtue  of  positive  law,  and 
it  has  no  such  support  in  the  Constitution,  it  cannot 
exist  within  the  national  jurisdiction;  that  the  Consti- 
tution nowhere  recognized  property  in  man,  and  that, 
according  to  its  true  interpretation,  freedom  and  not 
slavery  is  national,  while  slavery  and  not  freedom  is 
sectional;  that  in  this  spirit  the  national  government 
was  first  organized  under  Washington,  himself  an  abol 
itionist,  surrounded  by  abolitionists,  while  the  whole 
country,  by  its  churches,  its  colleges,  its  literature,  and 
all  its  best  voices,  was  united  against  slavery,  and  the 
national  flag  at  that  time.     .     .     . 

The  Slave  Act  violates  the  Constitution  and  shocks 
the  public  conscience.  With  modesty,  and  yet  with 
firmness,  let  me  add,  sir,  it  offends  against  the  divine 
law.  No  such  enactment  is  entitled  to  support.  .  .i 
.     Memoirs,  111,  pp.  293,  297,  298. 

In  regard  to  secret  sessions  in  the  Senate,  he 
spoke  as  follows,  1S531. 

The  limitation  proposed  seems  adequate  to  all  exi- 
gencies, while  the  general  rule  will  be  publicity     ^xe«- 


136  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

utive  sessions  with  closed  doors,  shrouded  from  the 
public  gaze  and  public  intrusion,  constitute  an  excep- 
tional part  of  our  system,  too  much  in  harmony  with 
the  proceedings  of  other  governments  less  liberal  in 
character.  The  genius  of  our  institutions  requires 
publicity.     .    .     .     Memoirs,  III,  p.  321. 

In  his  Finger  Point  from  Plymouth  Rock,  he 
said: 

Standing  on  Plymouth  Rock,  at  their  great  anni- 
versary, we  cannot  fail  to  be  elevated  by  their  exam- 
ple. .  .  .  Better  the  despised  Pilgrim,  a  fugitive 
for  freedom,  than  the  halting  politician,  forgetful  of 
principle,  'with  a  Senate  at  his  heels.' — Memoirs,  III, 
p  333. 

Concerning  the  Repeal  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise he  used  the  following  language: 

You  observe  that  the  Nebraska  Bill  opens  anew  the 
whole  slavery  question.  Cannot  something  be  done  to 
arouse  our  legislature  to  resolutions  affirming  their 
original  position  in  1819?  Here  all  is  uncertain.  I 
have  a  hope  that  it  may  be  tabled  at  once.  The  threat 
is  to  push  it  to  a  vote  without  delay.     .     .     . 

More  clearly  than  ever  before,  I  now  penetrate  that 
great  future  when  slavery  must  disappear.  Proudly  I 
discern  the  flag  of  my  country  as  it  ripples  in  every 
breeze,— at  last  in  reality  as  in  name,  the  flag  of  free- 
dom, undoubted,  pure  and  irresistible.  .  .  .  Mem- 
oirs, III,  pp.  361,  372. 

Concerning  foreign  born  citizens,  he  said: 
With  this  simple  explanation,  I  cannot  place  any 
check  upon  the  welcome  to  foreigners.  .  .  .  There 
are  our  broad  lands,  stretching  toward  the  setting  sun; 
let  them  come  and  take  them.  Ourselves  children  of 
the  Pilgrims  of  a  former  generation,  let  us  not  turn 
from  ,the  Pilgrims  of  the  present.  Let  the  home 
founded  by  our  emigrant  fathers  continue  open  in  its 
many  mansions  to  the  emigrants  of  today.     .     .     . 

A  party  which,  beginning  in  secrecy,  interferes  with 
religious  belief,  and  founds  a  discrimination  on  the 
accident  of  birth,  is  not  the  party  for  tis.  .  .  . 
Memoirs,  III,  pp.  k22,  423. 


CHARLES   SUMNER.  137 

In  1856,  he  wrote  to  C.  F.  Adams: 

.  .  .  At  last  Banks  is  elected.  I  was  present 
when  he  was  conducted  to  his  chair.  It  was  a  proud 
historic  moment.  For  the  first  time  during  years  there 
seems  to  be  a  North.  I  fancied  I  saw  the  star  glitter- 
ing over  his  head.  His  appearance,  voice,  and  man- 
ner were  in  admirable  harmony  with  the  occasion. 
Memoirs,  III,  p.  431. 

In  1856  he  wrote  to  Theodore  Parker  in  these 
despairing  words: 

I  have  read  and  admired  your  speech.  It  is  a  whole 
sheaf  of  spears  against  slavery.  Alas!  the  tyranny 
over  us  is  complete.  When  you  read  this,  I  shall  be 
saying  to  the  Senate,  '  They  will  notl '  Would  that  I 
had  your  strength!  But  I  shall  pronounce  the  most 
thorough  phillipic  ever  uttered  in  a  legislative  body. 
Memoirs,  III,  p.  439. 

The  following  extracts  relate  to  his  speech 
on  Kansas,  and  its  results: 

The  strife  is  no  longer  local,  but  national.  Even  now, 
while  I  speak,  portents  lower  in  the  horizon,  threaten- 
ing to  darken  the  land,  which  already  palpitates  with 
the  mutterings  of  civil  war.     .   ' .     . 

Thus  was  the  crime  consummated.  Slavery  stands 
erect,  clanking  its  chains  on  the  Territory  of  Kansas, 
surrounded  by  a  code  of  death,  and  trampling  upon  all 
cherished  liberties,  whether  of  speech,  the  press,  the 
bar,  the  trial  by  jury,  or  the  electoral  franchise.     .     .    . 

Even  now  the  black  flag  of  the  land-pirates  from 
Missouri  wave  at  the  mast  head;  in  their  laws  you  hear 
the  pirate  yell  and  seethe  flash  of  the  pirate  knife; 
while,  incredible  to  relate,  the  President,  gathering 
the  slave  power  at  his  back,  testifies  a  pirate  sympathy. 

.  .  .  I  as  an  American  citizen  shall  no  longer  be 
impotent  against  outrage.  In  just  regard  for  free  la- 
bor, which  you  would  blast  by  deadly  contact  with 
slave  labor;  in  rescue  of  fellow-citizens  now  subjugated 
to  tyrannical  usurpation;  in  dutiful  respect  for  the 
early  fathers,  these  aspirations  are  ignobly  thwarted; 
in  the  name  of  the  Constitution  outraged,  of  the  laws 
trampled  down,  of  justice  banished,  of  humanity  de- 
10 


138  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

graded,  of  peace  destroyed,  of  freedom  crushed  to  the 
the  earth,  and  in  the  name  of  the  Heavenly  Father, 
whose  service  is  perfect  freedom, — I  make  this  last  ap- 
peal. —  Memoirs,  III,  pp.  442,  443,  444,  452. 

Mr.  Chandler  spoke  of  the  effect  of  the  at- 
tack on  Sumner  in  these  words: 

That  gentleman  in  Washington,  who  now  lies  upon 
a  bed  of  pain,  whose  life  maybe  is  hanging  in  the  bal- 
ance, needs  no  sympathy  from  us.  Every  drop  of  blood 
shed  by  him  in  this  disgraceful  affair  has  raised 
ten  thousand  armed  men;  every  gash  upon  that  fore- 
head will  be  covered  with  a  political  crown;  let  it  be 
resisted  as  much  as  it  may  be  resisted  here  or  else- 
where. This  matter  is  raised  far  above  and  beyond  all 
personal  considerations .  It  is  a  matter  of  trifling  con- 
sequence to  Mr.  Sumner;  it  makes  those  who  love  him 
love  him  more,  —and  no  man  is  more  loved  or  more  to 
be  considered,  as  far  as  the  affections  or  friendships  are 
concerned.  Yet  personal  feelings  are  of  little  or  no 
consequence  in  this  outrage.  It  is  a  blow  not  merely 
at  Massachusetts,  a  blow  not  merely  at  the  name  and 
fame  of  our  common  country ;  it  is  a  blow  at  constitu- 
tional liberty  all  the  world  over,— it  is  a  stab  at  the 
cause  of  universal  freedom. — Memoirs,  III,  p.  499. 

Concerning  the  Cuban  question  as  it  ap- 
peared in  1859  to  Sumner,  we  have  these  words: 

Everything  tends  to  make  the  Cuban  question  the 
pivot  of  the  anti-slavery  cause .  If  Cuba  falls  into  the 
hands  of  the  American  slave-masters,  the  whole  sys- 
tem of  slavery  will  acquire  a  new  lease  of  life  and 
power.     .     .     . 

All  this  can  be  arrested  at  once,  and  the  slave  trade 
also,  if  Spain  can  in  any  way  be  induced  to  follow  the 
British  example  and  to  declare  emancipation  in  this 
island .  That  would  be  the  greatest  blow  ever  dealt  at 
slavery.  Indeed,  that  blow  would  be  mortal.  I  do  not 
think  slavery  could  long  survive  in  the  United  States. 
.    .    «     Memoirs,  III,  p.  568. 

Sumner  was  recognized,  for  the  first  time,  as 
a  great  orator  in  his  Fourth  of  July  address  of 
1845.     In  part  he  said: 


CHARLES   SUMNER.  139 

.  .  With  this  aim,  and  believing  that  I  can  in 
no  other  way  so  fitly  fulfill  the  trust  reposed  in  me  to- 
day, I  propose  to  consider  what,  in  oar  age,  are  the  true 
objects  of  national  ambition,— what  is  truly  National 
Honor,  National  Glory,—  WHAT  IS  THE  TRUE 
GRANDEUR  OF  NATIONS.  I  would  not  depart 
from  the  modesty  that  becomes  me,  yet  I  am  not  with- 
out hope  that  I  may  do  something  to  rescue  these  terms, 
now  so  powerful  over  the  minds  of  men,  from  mistaken 
objects,  especially  from  deeds  of  war,  and  the  exten- 
sion of  empire,  that  they  may  be  applied  to  works  of 
justice  and  beneficence,  which  is  better  than  war  or 
empire.     .     .     . 

Can  there  be  in  our  age  any  peace  that  is  not  honor- 
able, any  war  that  is  not  dishonorable  ?  The  true  honor 
of  a  nation  is  conspicuous  only  in  deeds  of  justice  and 
beneficence,  securing  and  advancing  human  happiness. 
In  the  clear  eye  of  that  Christian  judgment  which 
must  yet  prevail,  vain  are  the  victories  of  War,  infa- 
mous its  spoils.  He  is  the  benefactor,  and  worthy  of 
honor,  who  carries  comfort  to  wretchedness,  dries  the 
tear  of  sorrow,  relieves  the  unfortunate,  feeds  the  hun- 
gry, clothes  the  naked,  does  justice,  enlightens  the  ig- 
norant, unfastens  the  fetters  of  the  slave,  and  finally, 
by  virtuous  genius,  in  art,  literature,  science,  enlivens 
and  exhalts  the  hours  of  life,  or,  by  generous  example, 
inspires  a  love  for  God  and  man.  .  .  .  Sumner's 
Works,  Vol  I,  pp.  7,  9,  10. 

Anti- slavery  duties  of  the  Whig  Party,  Sep- 
tember 23,  1846: 

.  .  .  The  time,  I  believe,  has  gone  by,  when  the 
question  is  asked,  What  has  the  North  to  do  with  Slav- 
ery? It  might  almost  be  answered,  that,  politically, 
it  has  little  to  do  with  anything  else,— so  are  all  the 
acts  of  our  Government,  connected,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, with  this  institution.  Slavery  is  everywhere. 
Appealing  to  the  Constitution,  it  enters  the  Halls  of 
Congress,  in  the  disproportionate  representation  of  the 
Slave  States.  It  holds  its  disgusting  mart  at  Washing- 
ton, in  the  shadow  of  the  Capitol,  under  the  legisla- 
tive jurisdiction  of  the  Nation,— of  the  North  as  well 
as  the  South.     It  sends  its  miserable  victims  over  the 


140  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

high  seas,  from  the  ports  of  Virginia  to  the  ports  of 
Louisiana,  beneath  the  protecting  flag  of  the  Republic. 
It  presumes  to  follow  into  the  free  state  those  fugi- 
tives who,  filled  with  the  inspiration  of  Freedom,  seek 
our  alters  for  safety ;  nay,  more,  with  profane  hands  it 
seizes  those  who  have  never  known  the  name  of  slave, 
freemen  of  the  North,  and  dooms  them  to  irredeemable 
bondage.  It  insults  and  expels  from  its  jurisdic- 
tion honored  representatives  from  Massachusetts,  seek- 
ing to  secure  for  her  colored  citizens  the  peaceful  safe- 
guard of  the  Union.  It  assumes  at  pleasure  to  build 
up  new  slaveholding  states,  striving  perpetually  to 
widen  its  area,  while  professing  to  extend  the  area  of 
Freedom.  It  has  brought  upon  the  country  war  with 
Mexico,  with  its  enormous  expenditures  and  more 
enormous  guilt.  By  the  spirit  of  union  among  its  sup- 
porters, it  controls  the  affairs  of  Government,— inter- 
feres with  the  cherished  interests  of  the  North, 
enforcing  and  then  refusing  protection  to  her  manu- 
factures,— makes  and  unmakes  Presidents, — usurps  to 
itself  the  larger  portion  of  all  offices  of  honor  and 
profit,  both  in  the  army  and  navy,  and  also  in  the  civil 
department, — and  stamps  upon  our  whole  country  the 
character,  before  the  world,  of  that  monstrous  anom- 
aly and  mockery,  a  slaveholding  republic,  Avith  the  liv- 
ing truths  of  Freedom  on  its  lips  and  the  dark  mark  of 
Slavery  on  its  brow.  —  Works,  Vol.  I,  pp.  307,  SOS. 

Wrongful  Declaration  of  War  against  Mexico: 
.  .  .  In  the  condition  of  things,  the  way  of  safety, 
just  and  honorable,  was  by  constant  withdrawal  from 
the  Rio  Grande  to  the*  Nueces.  Congress  should  have 
spoken  like  Washington,  when  General  Braddock, 
staggered  by  the  peril  of  the  moment,  asked  the  youth- 
ful soldier,  "What  shall  I  do,  Colonel  Washington?" 
"RETREAT,  Sir!  RETREAT,  Sir!"  was  the  earnest 
reply.  The  American  forces  should  have  been  directed 
to  retreat, — not  from  any  human  force,  but  from  wrong- 
doing; and  this  would  have  been  a  true  victory.  —  Works 
I,  p.  819. 

In  a  later  speech  on  the  same  subject,  he 
speaks  in  part  as  follows: 

.  .  .  But  the  war  is  not  unconstitutional,  it  is  un- 
just, and  it  is  vile  in  object  and  character.     It  had  its 


CHARLE5    SUMNER.  141 

origin  in  a  well-known  series  of  measures  to  extend 
and  perpetuate  Slavery-  It  is  a  war  which  must  ever 
be  odious  in  history,  beyond  the  outrages  of  brutality 
which  disgrace  other  nations  and  times.  It  is  a  slave- 
driving  war.  In  principle  it  is  only  a  little  above  those 
miserable  conflicts  between  barbarian  chiefs  of  Cen- 
tral Africa  to  obtain  slaves  for  the  inhuman  markets 
of  Brazil.  Such  a  war  must  be  accursed  in  the  sight  of 
God.     Why  is  it  not  accursed  in  the  sight  of  man? 

We  are  told  that  the  country  is  engaged  in  the  war, 
and  therefore  it  must  be  maintained,  or,  as  it  is  some- 
times expressed,  vigorously  prosecuted.    In  other  words, 
the  violation  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  outrage  upon 
justice  sink  out  of  sight,  and  we  are  urged   to  these 
same  acts  again.     By  what  necromancy  do  these  pas's 
from  wrong  to  right?    In  what  book  of  morals  is  it 
written,  that  what  is  bad  before  it  is  undertaken  be 
comes  righteous  merely  from  the  circumstances  that  it 
is  commenced.     Who  on  earth  is  authorized  to  trans- 
mute wrong  into  right?    Who  admits  the  unconstitu- 
tionality and  injustice  of  the  war,  and  yet  sanctions  its 
prosecution,  must  approve  the  Heaven-defying  senti- 
ment   "Our  country,  right  or  wrong."     Can  this  be 
the  sentiment  of  Boston?    If  so,  in  vain  are  her  chil- 
dren nurtured  in  the  churches  of  the  Pilgrims,  in  vain 
fed  from  the  common  table  of  knowledge  bountifully 
supplied  by  our  common  schools.     Who  would  profess 
allegiance  to  wrong?    Who  would  defy  allegiance  to 
right'    Right  is  one  of  the  attributes  of  God,  or  rather 
it  is  part  of  his  Divinity  immortal  as  himself.      The 
mortal  can  not  be  higher  than  the  immortal.     Had  this 
sentiment  been  received  by  our  English  defenders  in 
the  war  of  the  Revolution,  no  fiery  tongues  of  Chatham, 
Burke,  Fox,  or  Camden  would  have  been  heard  in  our 
behalf      Their  great  testimony  would  have  failed.     All 
would  have  been  silenced,  while  crying  that  the  coun- 
try, right  or  wrong,  must  be  carried  through  the  war. 
.     Works  I  pp.  377,  378. 
Necessity  of  political  action  against  the  slave 
power  and  the  extension  of  slavery,  September 

29,  1S47: 

Mr  President, -It  is  late,  and  I  am  sorry  to  trespass 
on  unwilling  attention.     The  importance  of  the  cause 


142  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

is  my  apology.  The  question  is,  How  shall  we  express 
our  opposition  to  the  Extension  of  Slavery?  Here  it  is 
satisfactory  to  know  that  there  can  be  no  embarrass- 
ment from  constitutional  scruples.  It  is  not  proposed 
to  interfere  with  Slavery  in  any  constitutional  strong- 
hold, or  to  touch  any  so-called  compromise  of  the  Con- 
stitution. 

Is  it  not  strange,  Mr.  President,  that  we,  in  this  nine- 
teenth century  of  the  Christian  era,  in  a  country  whose 
heroic  charter  declares  that  "all  men  are  created 
equal,"  under  whose  Constitution  one  of  whose  express 
objects  is  to  "secure  the  blessings  of  liberty,"— is  it  not 
passing  strange  that  we  should  be  occupied  now  in 
considering  how  best  to  prevent  the  opening  of  new 
markets  for  human  flesh  ?  .  .  .  The  Missouri  com- 
promise, the  annexation  of  Texas,  the  war  with  Mex- 
ico, are  only  specimens  of  trouble  from  the  Slave  Power. 
.  .  .  The  Slave  Power  is  the  Imprisoned  Giant  of 
our  Constitution.     .     .     . 

This  brings  me  directly  to  the  point,  How  shall  we 
make  our  opposition  felt?  How  shall  it  become  vital 
and  palpable?  On  the  present  occasion  we  can  only 
declare  our  course.  .  .  .  We  must  carry  them  to 
the  ballot  box,  and  bring  our  candidates  to  their  stan- 
dard. .  .  .  Our  motto  must  be,  "Principles,  and 
those  only  who  will  maintain  them."  .  .  .  Works, 
Vol  II,  pp.  56,  57,  59,  61. 

Union  against  the  extension  of  slavery: 
By  the  Slave  Power  I  understand  that  combination 
of  persons,  or,  perhaps,  of  politicians,  whose  animating 
principal  is  the  perpetuation  and  extension  of  Slavery, 
with  the  advancement  of  Slaveholders. 

I  will  not  dwell  upon  the  manner  in  which  General 
Taylor  was  forced  upon  the  late  Whig  party.  This 
has  been  amply  done  by  others.  .  .  .  Yes!  it  was 
brought  about  by  an  unhallowed  union— conspiracy  let 
it  be  called^  between  two  remote  sections;  between 
the  politicians  of  the  Southwest  and  the  politicians  of 
the  Northeast, — between  the  cotton-planters  and  flesh- 
mongers  of  Louisiana  and  Mississippi  and  the  eotton- 
spinners  and  traflikers  of  New  England,— between  the 
lords  of  the  lash  and  the  lords  of  the  loom  .  .  „  To 
my  mind  the  way  is  plain.    The  lovers  of  Freedom 


CHARLES    SUMNER. 


143 


from  both  parties,  and  irrespective  of  all  party  associa- 
tions, must  unite,  and  by  a  new  combination,  congenial 
to  the  Constitution,  oppose  both  candidates.  This  will 
be  the  FREEDOM  POWER,  whose  single  object  will 
be  to  resist  the  SLAVE  POWER.  We  will  put  them 
face  to  face,  and  let  them  grapple.  Who  can  doubt 
the  result.  .  .  .  It  is  clear  that  the  only  question 
of  present  practical  interest  arises  from  the  usurpations 
of  the  Slave  Power  and  the  efforts  to  extend  Slavery. 
This  is  the  vital  question  at  this  time.  It  is  the  ques- 
tion of  questions.     .     .     .     Works,  II,  pp.  77,  81,  82,  85. 

The  party  of  freedom: 

It  is  said  that  we  have  but  one  idea.  This  I 
deny.  But  admitting  that  it  is  so,  are  we  not,  with  our 
one  idea,  better  than  a  party  with  no  ideas  at  all?  And 
what  is  our  one  idea?  It  is  the  idea  which  combined 
our  fathers  on  the  heights  of  Bunker  Hill,— which  in 
spired  Lafayette,— which  carried  Washington  through 
a  seven  years'  war,— which  with  coals  of  fire  touched 
the  lips  of  Adams,  Otis,  and  Patrick  Henry.  Ours  is 
an  idea  at  least  noble  and  elevating;  it  is  an  idea  which 
draws  in  its  trairj,  virtue,  goodness,  and  all  the  chari- 
ties of  life,  all  that  makes  a  home  of  improvement  and 
happiness.     .    .     . 

We  found  now  a  new  party.  Its  comer-stone  is 
Freedom.  Its  broad,  all-sustaining  arches  are  Truth, 
Justice,  and  Humanity.  Like  the  ancient  Roman 
Capitol,  at  once  Temple  and  Citadel,  it  shall  be  the  fit 
shrine  for  the  genius  of  American  institutions.—  Works 
II,  pp.  U5,  U6. 

Importance  of  a  free-soil  organization: 

.  This  is  the  case  now.  The  principles  of  Wash- 
ington, Jefferson>  and  Franklin,  the  security  of  our  Con- 
stitution, the  true  fame  of  our  country,  the  interests  of 
labor,  the  cause  of  Freedom,  Humanity,  Right,  Morals, 
Religion,  God,  all  these  are  now  at  stake.  Holier 
cause  has  never  appeared  in  history.  To  it  I  offer  not 
vows  only,  but  my  best  efforts,  wherever  they  can  be 
effectual.  .     .     Works,  II,  pp.  150,  151. 

War  system  of  the  commonwealth  of  nations, 
May  28,  1849; 


144  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

Only  when  we  contemplate  war  in  this  light  can  wa 
fully  perceive  its  combined  folly  and  wickedness.  Let 
me  bring  this  home  to  your  minds.  Boston  and  Cam- 
bridge are  adjoining  towns,  separated  by  the  river 
Charles.  In  the  event  of  controversy  between  these 
different  jurisdictions,  the  Municipal  Law  established 
a  judicial  tribunal,  and  not  War,  as  Arbiter.  Ascend- 
ing even  higher,  in  the  event  of  controversy  between 
two  different  counties,  as  between  Essex  and  Middle- 
sex, and  same  Municipal  Law  establishes  a  judicial  tri- 
bunal, and  not  War,  as  arbiter.  Ascending  yet  higher, 
in  the  event  of  controversy  between  two  different  States 
in  the  Union,  the  Constitution  established  a  judicial 
tribunal,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and 
not  War,  as  arbiter.  But  now  mark :  at  the  next  stage 
there  is  a  change  of  arbiter.  In  the  event  of  contro- 
versy between  two  different  States  in  the  Common- 
wealth of  Nations,  the  Supreme  law  establishes,  not  a 
judicial  tribunal,  but  War,  as  arbiter.  War  is  the  in- 
stitution established  for  the  determination  of  justice  be- 
tween two  nations.     .     .     . 

Recognizing  the  irrational  and  unchristian  character 
of  War  as  established  arbiter  between  towns,  counties 
and  states,  we  learn  to  condemn  it  as  established  arbiter 
between  nations.  If  wrong  in  one  case,  it  must  be 
wrong  in  the  other.  —  Works  II,  pp.  189,  190,  191. 

Where  liberty  is,  there  is  my  party: 
.  .  .  It  was  the  sentiment  of  Benjamin  Franklin^ 
that  apostle  of  Freedom  uttered  during  the  trials  of 
the  Revolution,  "Where  liberty  is,  there  is  my 
country."  I  doubt  not  that  each  of  you  will  be  ready 
to  respond,  in  similar  strain,  ' '  Where  liberty  is,  there 
is  my  party."    ,     .     .—Works,  II,  p.  281. 

A  congress  of  nations,  with  disarmament: 

"PETITION  FOR  PEACE. 

"To  the  Honorable  Senate  (or  H.  of  B.)  of  the  United 
States: 
"The  undersigned,  inhabitants  (or  citizens,  or  legal 

voters)  of in  the  State  of ,  deploring 

the  manifold  evils  of  war,  and  believing  it  possible  to 
supersede  its  alleged  necessity,  as  an  Arbiter  of  Jus- 
tice among  the  nations,  by  the  timely  adoption  of  wise 


CHARLES    SUMNER.  145 

and  feasible  substitutes,  respectfully  request  your  hon- 
orable body  to  take  such  action  as  you  may  deem  best 
in  favor  of  Stipulated  Arbitration,  or  a  Congress  of 
Nations,  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  most  desira- 
ble end"    ...      Works,  II,  p.  396. 

Our  immediate  anti-slavery  duties,  Novem- 
ber 6,  1850: 

.  .  .  It  is  a  mistake  to  say,  as  is  often  charged, 
that  we  seek  to  interfere,  through  Congress,  with 
Slavery  in  the  States,  or  in  any  way  to  direct  the  legis- 
lation of  Congress  upon  subjects  not  within  its  juris- 
diction. Our  political  aims,  as  well  as  our  political 
duties,  are  coextensive  with  our  political  responsibili- 
ties. And  since  we  at  the  North  are  responsible  for 
Slavery,  wherever  it  exists  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
Congress,  it  is  unpardonable  in  us  not  to  exert  every 
power  we  possess  to  enlist  Congress  against  it. 

Looking  at  details:— 

We  demand,  first  and  foremost,  the  instant  Repeal 
of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill.     (Cheers.) 

We  demand  the  Abolition  of  Slavery  in  the  District 
of  Columbia.  (Cheers.)  We  demand  of  Congress  the 
exercise  of  its  time-honored  power  to  prohibit  Slavery 
in  the  Territories.     (Cheers. ) 

We  demand  of  Congress  that  it  shall  refuse  to  receive 
any  new  Slave  State  into  the  Union.   (Cheers,  repeated. ) 

We  demand  the  Abolition  of  the  Domestic  Slave 
Trade,  so  far  as  it  can  be  constitutionally  reached,  but 
particularly  on  the  high  seas  under  the  National  Flag. 

And,  generally,  we  demand  from  the  National  Gov- 
ernment, the  exercise  of  all  constitutional  power  to  re- 
lieve itself  from  responsibility  of  Slavery.  And  yet  one 
thing  further  must  be  done.  The  Slave  Power  must  be 
overturned, — so  that  the  National  Government  may  be 
put  openly,  actively,  and  perpetually  on  the  side  of 
Freedom.  (Prolonged  applause. )  .  ..  .  Works,  Vol. 
II,  pp.  415,  416. 

QUESTIONS 

1.  To  what  generation  of  American  statesmen  does 
Sumner  belong?    2.  How  can  you  determine? 

1.  What  kind  of  a  student  was  Sumner?  2.  What 
studies  did  he  like  best?  3.  What  was  his  scholarship 
at    fifteen?    4.  Discuss    his  personal    appearance,     o. 


146  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

What  can  you  learn  of  him  from  his  letter  while  at 
college?  6.  What  do  you  learn  of  Harvard  customs? 
7.  Discuss  his  moral  qualities.  8.  His  social.  9.  Was 
he  a  thorough  student?  10.  What  did  he  think  of 
method  in  study?  11.  What  occupation  did  he  be- 
lieve was  the  noblest? 

1.  What  was  his  first  impression  of  Washington  pol- 
itics? 2.  What  of  Slavery?  3.  What  reasons  does  he 
give  to  account  for  the  growing  Abolitionism  of  the 
North?  4.  What  was  his  impression  of  the  Campaign 
of  1840?  5.  Did  he  find  country  or  party  first  thought 
of?  6.  Find  out  what  the  "Creole"  affair  was.  7. 
Give  his  argument  on  the  case.  8.  Make  a  list  of  the 
evils  he  thinks  he  sees  in  American  political  life.  9 
What  was  the  great  work  of  Horace  Mann?  10.  What 
did  he  think  of  Webster's  speech  of  1850?  11.  When 
is  a  question  settled?  Was  his  answer  always  correct? 
12.  What  did  he  think  of  the  tariff? 

1.  Make  a  list  of  all  the  points  he  makes  against 
slavery.  2.  Make  a  list  of  the  means  he  would  use  to 
destroy  slavery.  3.  Were  his  attacks  on  slavery  of 
such  a  nature  as  to  anger  those  attacked?  4.  What 
was  the  result  of  the  speech  on  Kansas?  5.  How 
would  he  use  Cuba  if  possible?    Why? 

1.  What  did  Sumner  think  constituted  the  "True 
Grandeur  of  Nations  "  ?  2.  Summarize  his  arguments 
for  peace.  3.  What  can  be  said  on  the  other  side?  4. 
Trace  his  views  in  regard  to  Mexican  War.  5.  Have 
his  predictions  been  fulfilled? 

1.  Estimate  Sumner's  character  from  his  speeches 
2.  Estimate  his  oratorical  power  from  them  also.  3. 
Was  he  a  narrow,  or  broad  minded  man  ?  4.  Compare 
him  with  either  Adams,  Webster,  Clay,  or  Calhoun. 


STEPHEN  ARNOLD  DOUGLAS 


Born  in  Vermont,  1813.  Went  to  Illinois,  1834. 
Member  of  the  Illinois  legislature,  1836-1838. 
Judge  of  the  supreme  court  of  Illinois,  1841-1843. 
Member  of  House  of  Representatives,  1843-1846. 
Senator,  1846-1861.  Candidate  for  nomination 
for  President,  1852, 1856.  Candidate  for  Presi- 
dent, 1860.  Strongest  supporter  of  the  doctrine 
of  "Popular  Sovereignty."  Author  of  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  1854.  Opponent  of  ad- 
mission of  Kansas  under  the  Lecompton  con- 
stitution, 1858.  Series  of  debates  with  Lincoln, 
1858.    Died,  1860. 


CHAPTEK  VII 

STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

DOUGLAS  belonged  to  the  same  genera- 
tion as  Sumner,  Seward,  Chase,  and 
Lincoln.  Like  them  he  is  best  known 
by  the  part  he  took  in  the  great  slavery  strug- 
gle; but,  unlike  them,  he  was  an  opponent  of 
the  agitation  of  the  subject,  and  bitterly  op- 
posed to  the  abolitionists.  Douglas  was  born 
in  New  England,  and  educated  in  its  limits. 
At  the  age  of  twenty  he  gave  up  h^s  ambition 
for  a  college  course,  although  he  was  well  pre- 
pared in  the  classics  and  mathematics,  and 
turned  to  the  study  of  law.  He,  like  nearly  all 
this  group  of  great  men,  came  from  the  ranks 
of  the  middle  class,  and  from  the  farm. 

Before  he  was  twenty-one  he  started  west, 
and  at  length  arrived  in  Illinois  with  less  than 
one  dollar  in  his  pocket.  However,  in  less 
than  ten  years  he  was  one  of  the  leaders  of  the 
Democratic  party  in  the  state,  with  a  reputa- 
tion that  already  extended  beyond  its  borders. 

The  following,  extracts  illustrate  some  phases 
of  his  life;  but,  as  in  the  cases  of  the  other  men 
of  whom  we  have  studied,  the  picture  is  too 
brief  to  give  more  than  an  outline  of  his  career 
and  labors. 

Douglas  defends  the  act  of  Jackson  in  sus- 
pending the  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus,  at  New  Or- 
leans, ii*  the  war  of  1812,  in  these  words: 


STEPHEN  A.    DOUGLAS.  149 

They  have  been  pleased  to  stigmatize  this  act  of  jus- 
tice to  the  distinguished  patriot  and  hero  as  a  humbug 
— a  party  trick — a  political  movement,  intended  to  oper- 
ate upon  the  next  Presidential  election.  These  imputa- 
tions are  as  unfounded  as  they  are  uncourteous,  and 
I  hurl  them  back  .  ,  .  upon  any  man  who  is  capa- 
ble of  harboring,  .  .  .  such  a  sentiment.  .  .  . 
A  question  involving  the  right  of  a  country  to  use  the 
means  necessary  to  its  defense  ...  is  too  vitally 
important  to  be  yielded  without  an  inquiry  into  the 
nature  and  source  of  the  fatal  restriction  which  is  to 
deprive  a  nation  of  the  power  of  self-preservation.  The 
proposition  contended  for  by  the  Opposition  is,  that  the 
general  in  command,  to  whose  protection  are  com- 
mitted the  country,  and  the  lives,  property  and  liber- 
ties of  the  citizens  within  his  district,  may  not  declare 
martial  law  when  it  is  ascertained  that  its  exercise,  and 
it  alone,  can  save  all  from  total  destruction.  .  .  . 
For  one,  I  maintain  that  in  the  exercise  of  this  power, 
General  Jackson  did  not  violate  the  Constitution,  nor 
assume  to  himself  any  authority  which  was  not  fully 
authorized  and  legalized  by  his  position,  his  duty  and 
the  unavoidable  necessity  of  the  case  ...  He  had 
a  right  to  declare  martial  law  when  it  was  ascertained 
and  acknowledged  that  nothing  but  martial  law  would 
enable  him  to  defend  the  city  and  the  country.  .  .  . 
It  does  not  imply  the  right  to  suspend  the  laws  and 
civil  tribunals  at  pleasure.  The  right  grows  out  o.f  the 
necessity;  and  when  the  necessity  fails,  the  right  ceases. 
.     .  There  are  exigencies  in  the  history  of  nations 

as  well  as  individuals  when  necessity  becomes  the  par- 
amount law  to  which  all  other  considerations  must 
yield.  It  is  that  first  great  law  of  nature,  which  au- 
thorizes a  man  to  defend  his  life,  .  .  .  by  every  means 
in  his  power.  .  .  .  Does  the  man  live  who  will  have 
the  hardihood  to  question  his  patriotism,  his  honesty, 
the  purity  of  his  motives  in  every  act  he  performed, 
and  every  power  he  exercised  on  that  trying  occasion? 
While  none  dare  impeach  his  motives,  they  tell  us  he 
assumed  almost  unlimited  power. 

I  commend  him  for  it;  the  exigency  required  it.  I 
admire  that  elevation  of  soul  which  rises  above  all  per- 
sonal consideration,  and,  regardless  of  consequences, 


150  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

stakes  life,  and  honor,  and  glory  upon  the  issne,  when 
the  salvation  of  the  country  depends  upon  the  result. — 
Speech  of  Douglas,  Jan.  7,  18M>  Cong.  Globe,  Cited  in 
Sheahan's  Life  of  Douglas,  pp.  61,  62,  63,  69. 

The  Mexican  War: 

My  object  (said  he)  is  to  vindicate  our  government 
and  country  from  the  aspersions  and  calumnies  which 
have  been  cast  upon  them  ...  in  connection  with 
the  causes  which  have  led  to  the  existing  war  with 
Mexico.  I  prefer  to  meet  and  repel  those  charges  at 
once,  .  .  .  and  to  demonstrate,  so  far  as  my  feeble 
abilities  will  enable  me  to  do  so,  that  our  government 
has  not  been  in  the  wrong,  and  Mexico  in  the  right,  in 
the  origin  and  progress  of  the  pending  controversy.  . 
.  .  .  They  profess  great  anxiety  for  the  triumph  of 
our  arms,  but  they  denounce  the  war— the  cause  in 
which  our  country  is  engaged— as  ' '  unholy,  unright- 
eous, and  damnable".     .     .     . 

Not  only  have  we  never  done  an  act  of  an  unfriendly 
character  toward  Mexico,  but  I  confidently  assert  that, 
from  the  very  moment  of  the  existence  of  the  republic, 
we  have  allowed  to  pass  unimproved  no  opportunity  of 
doing  Mexico  an  act  of  kindness.  I  will  not  now 
enumerate  the  acts  of  that  character.  ...  If  this 
government  choose  to  forget  them,  I  will  not  recall 
them.  While  such  has  been  our  course  to  Mexico,  it  is 
with  pain  I  am  forced  to  say  that  the  open  violation 
of  the  rights  of  American  citizens  by  the  authorities 
of  Mexico  have  been  greater  for  the  last  fifteen  years 
than  those  of  all  the  governments  of  Christendom 
united;  and  yet  we  have  left  the  redress  of  all  these 
multiplied  and  accumulated  wrongs  to  friendly  nego- 
tiations, without  having  ever  intimated  a  disposition 
to  resort  to  force.     .     .     . 

They  express  great  sympathy  for  Mexico;  profess 
to  regard  her  an  injured  and  persecuted  nation  — 
the  victim  of  American  injustice  and  aggression. 
They  have  no  sympathy  for  the  widows  and  orphans 
whose  husbands  and  fathers  have  been  robbed  and 
murdered  by  the  Mexican  authorities;  no  sympathy 
with  our  countrymen  who  have  dragged  out  miserable 
lives  within  the  walls  of  her  dungeons,  without  crime 
and  without  trial;  no  indignation  at  the  outrages  upom 


STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS.  151 

©ur  commerce  and  shipping,  and  the  insults  to  our 
national  flag;  no  resentment  at  the  violation  of 
treaties  and  the  invasion  of  our  territory.  ...  I 
wil"  now  proceed  to  examine  the  arguments  by  wkich 
the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  .  .  .  pretends  to  justify 
their  foreign  sympathies.  They  assume  that  the  Rio 
del  Norte  was  not  the  boundary  line  between  Texas 
and  Mexico.     .     .     . 

I  must,  therefore,  be  permitted  to  adhere  to  my 
original  position  that  the  treaty  of  peace  and  the 
boundaries  [agreed  upon]  between  Santa  Ana  and  the 
Texan  government  in  May,  1836,  was  binding  on  the 
Mexican  nation,  it  having  been  executed  by  the  gov- 
ernment de  facto  for  the  time  being. 

Mr.  Adams.  Has  not  the  treaty  with  Santa  Ana 
been  since  discarded  by  the  Mexican  government? 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  presume  it  has,  for  I  am  not  aware 
of  any  treaty  or  compact  which  that  government  ever 
entered  into  that  she  did  not  afterwards  either  violate 
or  repudiate.     .     .     . 

I  am  not  now  to  be  diverted  from  the  real  point  in 
controversy  by  a  discussion  of  the  question  whether  the 
Rio  del  Norte  was  the  boundary  to  its  source.  My 
present  object  is  to  repel  the  calumnies  which  have 
been  urged  against  our  government,  to  place  our  coun- 
try in  the  right  and  the  enemy  in  the  wrong,  before 
the  civilized  world,  according  to  the  truth  and  justice 
of  the  case.  I  have  exposed  these  calumnies  by  refer- 
ence to  the  acts  and  admissions  of  our  accusers.  .  . 
I  have  shown  that  Texas  always  claimed  the  Rio  del 
Norte  as  her  boundary  during  the  existence  of  the  re- 
public, and  that  Mexico  on  several  occasions  recog- 
nized it  as  such  in  the  most  solemn  and  direct  manner. 

All  is  wrong  in  their  eyes.  Their  country  Is  always 
wrong,  and  its  enemies  right.  It  has  ever  been  so.  It 
was  so  in  the  last  war  with  Great  Britain.  Then  it 
was  unbecoming  a  moral  and  religious  people  to  re- 
joice at  the  success  of  American  arms.  We  were 
wrong,  in  their  estimation,  in  the  French  Indemnity 
case,  in  the  Iiorida  war,  in  all  the  Indian  wars,  and 
now  in  the  Mexican  war.  I  despair  of  ever  seeing  my 
country  a-^in  in  the  right,  if  they  [the  Whigs]  are  to 


152  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

be  the  oracles.— Cited  in  Sheahan,  pp.  75,  78,  80,  81, 84, 
89,  90. 

The  Oregon  Boundary: 

It  therefore  becomes  us  to  put  this  nation  in  a  state 
of  defense;  and  when  we  are  told  that  this  will  lead  to 
war,  all  I  have  to  say  is  this,  violate  no  treaty  stipula- 
tions, nor  any  principal  of  the  law  of  nations;  preserve 
the  honor  and  integrity  of  the  country,  but,  at  the  same 
time,  assert  our  right  to  the  last  inch  and  then,  if  war 
comes,  let  it  come.  ...  I  would  blot  out  the  lines  on 
the  map  which  now  mark  our  national  boundaries  on 
this  continent,  and  make  the  area  of  liberty  as  broad  as 
the  continent  itself.  I  would  not  suffer  petty  rival  re- 
publics to  grow  up  here,  engendering  jealousy  of  each 
other,  ...  I  do  not  wish  to  go  beyond  the  great 
ocean — beyond  those  boundaries  which  the  God  of 
nature  has  marked  out,  I  would  limit  myself  only  by 
that  boundary  which  is  so  clearly  defined  by  nature. 

Our  federal  system  is  admirably  adapted  to  the 
whole  continent;  and  while  I  would  not  violate  the 
laws  of  nations,  nor  treaty  stipulations,  nor  in  any 
manner  tarnish  the  national  honor,  I  would  exert  all 
legal  and  honorable  means  to  drive  Great  Britain  . 
.  from  the  continent  of  North  America  and  extend 
the  limits  of  the  republic  from  ocean  to  ocean.  I 
wonld  make  this  an  ocean  bound  republic  and  have  no 
more  disputes  about  boundaries,  or  "red  lines"  upon 
the  maps. — Cited  in  Sheahan,  pp.  92,  93. 

Territorial  Expansion;  The  Clayton- Bui wer 
Treaty;  February  14,  1853: 

With  an  avowed  policy,  of  thirty  years  standing, 
that  no  future  European  Colonization  is  to  be  per- 
mitted in  America — affirmed  when  there  was  no  oppor- 
tunity for  enforcing  it  and  abandoned  whenever  a  case 
was  presented  for  carrying  it  into  practical  effect — it  is 
now  proposed  to  beat  another  retreat  under  cover  of 
terrible  threats  of  awful  consequences  when  the  offence 
shall  be  repeated.    .     .     . 

That  we  would  resist  any  attempt  to  transfer  ft*e  island 
of  Cuba  to  any  European  power,  either  with  or  without 
the  consent  of  Spain,  there  is,  I  trust  no  question  in 


STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS.  153 

the  mind  of  any  American.  .  .  .  That  the  United 
States  do  not  meditate  any  designs  upon  the  island  .  .  . 
has  been  demonstrated  to  the  world  in  a  manner  that 
forbids  the  necessity  for  a  disclaimer  of  unworthy  and 
perfidious  purposes  on  our  part.  .  .  .  The  whole 
system  of  European  colonization  rests  upon  seizure, 
violence  and  fraud.  European  powers  hold  nearly  all 
their  colonies  by  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  tenures. 
.  .  .  Now  sir  a  few  words  with  regard  to  the 
island  of  Cuba.  ...  I  have  often  said,  and  now 
repeat  that,  so  long  as  the  island  of  Cuba  is  content  to 
remain  loyal  to  the  crown  of  Spain,  be  it  so.  I  have  no 
desire,  no  wish  to  disturb  that  relation.  I  have  always 
said,  and  now  repeat  that,  whenever  the  people  of  the 
island  of  Cuba  shall  show  themselves  worthy  of  free- 
dom by  asserting  and  maintaining  their  independence 
and  establishing  republican  institutions,  my  heart,  my 
sympathies,  my  prayers  are  with  them  for  the  ac- 
complishment of  that  object.  I  have  often  said,  and 
now  repeat  that,  when  that  independence  shall  have 
been  established,  if  it  shall  be  necessary  to  their  in- 
terest or  safety  to  apply  as  Texas  did  for  annexation,  I 
shall  be  ready  to  do  by  them  as  we  did  by  Texas,  and 
receive  them  into  the  Union.— Cited  in  Sheahan,  pp. 
101,  109,  110. 

The  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  March  10,  1853: 
You  may  make  as  many  treaties  as  you  please  to  fet- 
ter the  limbs  of  this  giant  republic,  and  she  will  burst 
them  all  from  her,  .  .  .  What  is  the  use  of  your 
guarantee  that  you  will  never  erect  any  fortifications 
in  Central  America;  never  annex,  occupy  or  colonize 
any  portion  of  that  country?  How  do  you  know  that 
you  can  avoid  doing  it?  If  you  make  the  canal,  I  ask 
you  if  American  citizens  will  not  settle  along  its  line; 
whether  they  will  not  build  up  towns  at  each  terminus; 
.  .  .  whether  American  principles  and  American  in- 
stitutions will  not  be  firmly  planted  there?  .  .  .  But, 
so  certain  as  this  republic  exists,  so  certain  as  we  re- 
main a  united  people,  so  certain  as  the  laws  of  progress 
which  have  raised  us  from  a  mere  handful  to  a  mighty 
nation  shall  continue  to  govern  our  action,  just  so  cer- 
tain are  these  events  to  be  worked  out,  and  you  will  be 
compelled  to  extend  your  protection  in  that  direction. 

11 


154  AMERICAN  HISTORY  STUDIES, 

Sir,  I  am  not  desirous  of  hastening  the  day.  I  am 
not  impatient  of  the  time  when  it  shall  be  realized.  I 
do  not  wish  to  give  any  additional  impulse  to  our  prog- 
ress. We  are  going  fast  enough.  But  I  wish  our  pol- 
icy, our  laws,  our  institutions,  should  keep  up  with  the 
advance  in  science,  in  the  mechanical  arts,  in  agricul- 
ture and  in  everything  that  tends  to  make  us  a  great 
and  powerful  nation.  Let  us  look  the  future  in  the 
face  and  let  us  prepare  to  meet  that  which  can  not  he 
avoided.— Cited  in  Sheahan,  pp.  112  113. 

Filibustering,  1858: 

Sir,  I  have  no  fancy  for  this  system  of  filibustering. 
I  believe  its  tendency  is  to  defeat  the  very  object  they 
have  in  view,  ...  I  would  like  to  see  the  bound- 
aries of  this  republic  extended  gradually  and  steadily, 
as  fast  as  we  can  Americanize  the  countries  we  can  ac- 
quire and  make  their  inhabitants  loyal  American  citi- 
zens when  we  get  them.  Faster  than  that  I  would  not 
desire  to  go.  .  .  .  I  believe  the  interests  of  com- 
merce, of  civilization,  every  interest  which  civilized 
nations  hold  dear,  would  be  benefited  by  expansion; 
but  still  I  desire  to  see  it  done  regularly  and  lawfully, 
and  I  apprehend  that  these  expeditions  have  a  tendency 
to  check  it.     .     .    .    —Cited  in  Sheahan,  p.  120. 

Closing  words  of  his  speech  at  New  Orleans, 
December,  1858: 

It  is  our  destiny  to  have  Cuba,  and  it  is  folly  to  de- 
bate the  question.  It  naturally  belongs  to  the  Ameri- 
can continent.  It  guards  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi 
river,  which  is  the  heart  of  the  American  continent, 
and  the  body  of  the  American  nation.  Its  acquisition 
is  a  matter  of  time  only.  Our  government  should 
adopt  the  policy  of  receiving  Cuba  as  soon  as  a  fair  and 
just  opportunity  shall  be  presented.  Whether  that  op- 
portunity occur  next  year  or  the  year  after,  whenever 
the  occasion  arises  and  the  opportunity  presents  itself, 
it  should  be  embraced. 

The  same  is  true  of  Central  America  and  Mexico.  It 
will  not  do  to  say  we  have  territory  enough.  .  .  . 
We  acquired  Louisiana  and  Florida,  Texas  and  Cali- 
fornia, just  as  the  increase  in  our  population  and  our 
interests  demanded. 


STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS.  155 

I  do  not  want  territory  any  faster  than  we  can  oc- 
cupy, Americanize  and  civilize  it.  I  am  no  fili- 
bnsterer.     .     .     . 

I  am  in  favor  of  expansion,  .  .  .  but  I  am  not 
in  favor  of  that  policy  unless  the  great  principle  of 
non-intervention  and  the  right  of  the  people  to  decide 
the  question  of  slavery  and  all  other  domestic  ques- 
tions for  themselves  shall  be  maintained.  If  that  prin- 
ciple prevail,  we  have  a  future  before  us  more  glorious 
than  that  of  any  other  people  that  ever  existed.  .  .  . 
It  will  gain  new  strength  with  every  state  brought 
into  the  confederacy.  Then  there  will  be  peace  and 
harmony  between  the  free  states  and  the  s'ave  states. 
The  more  degrees  of  latitude  and  longitude  embraced 
beneath  our  Constitution,  the  better.  The  greater  the 
variety  of  productions,  the  better;  for  then  we  shall 
have  the  principles  of  free  trade  apply  to  the  important 
staples  of  the  world,  making  us  the  greatest  planting 
as  well  as  the  greatest  manufacturing,  the  greatest 
commercial  as  well  as  the  greatest  agricultural  power 
on  the  globe.     .     .     .     Cited  in  Sheahan,  pp.  122,  123. 

The  Compromise  of  1850:  speech  in  the 
Senate: 

I  believe  the  people  have  a  right  to  do  as  they  please 
when  they  form  their  Constitution,  and,  no  matter 
what  domestic  regulations  they  may  make,  they  have 
a  right  to  come  into  the  Union,  provided  there  is 
nothing  in  their  Constitution  which  violates  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  ...  I  have  always 
held  that  the  people  have  a  right  to  settle  these  ques- 
tions as  they  choose,  not  only  when  they  come  into  the 
Union  as  a  state,  but  that  they  should  be  permittee!  to 
do  so  while  a  territory. 

The  Senator  from  Mississippi  puts  a  question  to  me 
as  to  what  number  of  people  there  must  be  in  a  terri- 
tory before  this  right  to  govern  themselves  accrues. 
Without  determining  the  precise  number,  I  will  as- 
sume that  the  right  ought  to  accrue  to  the  people  at  the 
moment  they  have  enough  to  constitute  a  government; 
.  If,  sir,  there  are  enough  to  require  a  govern- 
ment, and  to  authorize  you  to  allow  them  to  govern 
themselves,  there  are  enough  to  govern  themselves 
upon  the  subject  of  negroes  as  well  as  concerning  other 


156  AMERICAN    HISTORY   STUDIES. 

species  of  property  and  Other  descriptions  of  institu- 
tions.    .     .     .     — Cited  in  Sheahan,  pp.  137,  U2,  US. 

Speech  in  Senate,  December  23,  1851,  on 
the  Foot  Resolutions.  Explains  why  he  did 
not  vote  for  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act: 

Whatever  political  sins  I  may  at  any  time  have  com- 
mitted, I  think  I  may  safely  assert  that  no  senator  ever 
doubted  my  willingness  to  assume  the  full  measure  of 
responsibility  resulting  from  my  official  position,     The 
dodging  of  votes— the  attempt  to  avoid  responsibility- 
is  no  part  of  my  system  of  political  tactics.     And  yet, 
sir,    the  special   organ  of  the  administration   has  on 
several  occasions  accused  me,     .     .     .     with   having 
dodged  the  vote  on  this  bill.     ...     I  have  always 
opposed  the  introduction  of  the  subject  of  slavery  into 
the  halls  of  Congress  for  any  purpose— either  for  dis- 
cussion or  action— except  in  the  cases  specified  and  en- 
joined by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  reclamation  of  fugitives  from  labor.     . 
.     My  action  here  since  I  have  been  a  member  of 
the  Senate  has  been  governed  by  the  same  principle. 
Whenever  the  slavery  agitation  has  been  forced  upon 
us,  I  have  always  met  it  fairly,  directly  and  fearlessly 
and  endeavored  to  apply  the  proper  remedy.     Whether 
the  remedy  proposed  by  me  has  always  been  the  wisest 
and  most  appropriate  is  a  fair  subject  of  discussion, 
and  will  doubtless  give  rise  to   a  wide  diversity  of 
opinion.     ...     It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
Wilmot  Proviso  not  only  proposed  to  prohibit  slavery 
in  the  territories  while  they  remained  territories,  but 
also  went  farther,  and  proposed  to  insert  a  stipulation 
in  the  treaty  with  a  foreign  power  pledging  the  faith 
of  thp  nation   that  slavery  should  never  exist  in  the 
country  acquired,  either  while  it  remained  in  the  con- 
dition of  Territories,  or  after  it  should  have  been  ad- 
mitted into  the  Union   as  states   on  an  *  equal  footing 
witn   rne  original  states.     ...     I  was  reluctant  to 
give  up  the  Missouri  Compromise.     .    .     .     But  public 
duty  aemanded   that  all  considerations  of    pride,  of 
character,  and  of  opinion  should  be  made  subservient 
to  the  public  peace  and  tranquillity.     I  gave  it  up— re- 
luctantly, to  "be  sure— and  conceived  the  idea  of  a  bill 


STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS.  157 

to  admit  California  as  a  state,  leaving  the  people  to 
form  a  constitution  and  settle  the  question  of  slavery 
afterward  to  suit  themselves.    .    .    .     Cited  in  Slieahan, 

pp.  161,  163,  164,  165. 

Principles  of  the  Compromise  of  1850,  asset 
forth  by  Douglas  in  1854: 

From  these  provisions  it  is  apparent  that  the  com- 
promise measures  of  1850  affirm  and  rest  upon  the  fol- 
lowing propositions: 

First— That  all  questions  pertaining  to  slavery  in  the 
territories,  and  in  the  new  states  to  be  formed  there- 
from, are  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  people  resid- 
ing therein,     .     .     . 

Second— That  "all  cases  involving  title  to  slaves" 
and  ' '  questions  of  personal  freedom  "  are  referred  to 
the  adjudication  of  the  local  tribunals,  with  the  right 
of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

Third— That  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  in  respect  to  fugitives  from  service,  is 
to  be  carried  into  faithful  execution  in  all  the  "organ- 
ized territories"  the  same  as  in  the  states.— Cited  in 
Sheahan,  p.  189. 

The  Kansas-Nebraska  Act: 

.  .  .  Upon  the  other  point— that  pertaining  to  the 
question  of  slavery  in  the  territories — it  was  the  inten- 
tion of  the  committee  to  be  equally  explicit.  We  took 
the  principles  established  by  the  compromise  acts  of 
1850  as  orzr  guide.  .  .  .  These  measures  are  estab- 
lished and  rest  upon  the  great  principles  of  self-gov- 
ernment—that the  people  should  be  allowed  to  decide 
the  questions  of  their  domestic  institutions  for  them- 
selves, subject  only  to  such  limitations  and  restrictions 
as  are  imposed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  instead  of  having  them  determined  by  an  ar- 
bitrary or  geographical  line.  .  .  .—Cited  in  Sheahan, 
pp.  193,  194,  195. 

Concerning  the  Chase  Amendment  to  the  Kan- 
sas-Nebraska Bill: 

Now,  sir,  the  true,  direct  and  manly  course  tc  meet 
this  question  is  that  suggested  by  my  honorable  rriend 
from  Illinois— (Mr,  Shields).    Put  in  your  amendment 


168  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

that  the  people  of  the  territories  shall  be  at  liberty  to 
exclude  or  introduce,  and  if  there  is  anything  in  the 
Constitution  ©f  the  United  States  which  disables  a  ter- 
ritorial government  from  introducing  slavery,  if  the 
honorable  senator  believes  that,  if  he  is  sincere  in  that 
opinion,  there  sits  a  tribunal  below  us  who  will  pass 
upon  the  validity  and  constitutionality  of  any  act  that 
we  may  pass.— Cited  in  Sheahan,  p.  201f. 

Extracts  from  Douglas'  great  speech  of 
March  3,  1854,  a  speech  which  brought  from 
Seward  the  words,  "I  have  never  had  so  much 
respect  for  him  (Douglas)  as  to-night." 

The  statement  to  which  they  seem  to  attach  the  most 
importance,  ...  is  that,  pending  the  Compromise 
measures,  of  1850,  no  man  in  or  out  of  Congress  ever 
dreamed  of  abrogating  the  Missouri  Compromise;  that 
from  that  period  down  to  the  present  session  nobody 
supposed  that  its  validity  had  been  impaired ;  .  .  . 
that  at  the  time  of  submitting  the  report  and  bill  to 
the  Senate,  on  the  1th  of  January  last,  neither  I  nor  any 
member  of  the  Committee  ever  thought  of  such  a  thing; 
and  that  we  could  never  be  brought  up  to  the  point  of 
abrogating  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act  until 
after  the  senator  from  Kentucky  introduced  his  amend- 
ment to  my  bill.  .  .  .  Will  any  one  of  my  accusers 
dare  to  make  this  issue  and  let  it  be  tried  by  the  record? 

These  measures  are  predicated  on  the  great  fundamen- 
tal principle  that  every  people  ought  to  possess  the 
light  of  forming  and  regulating  their  own  internal  con- 
cerns and  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way.  .  . 
.     [therefore  the  doctrine  of  the  committee  is] 

First.  That  the  whole  question  of  slavery  should  be 
withdrawn  from  the  halls  of  Congress,  and  the  politi- 
cal arena,  and  committed  to  the  arbitrament  of  those 
who  are  immediately  interested  in  and  alone  respon- 
sible for  its  existence. 

Second.  The  applying  this  principle  to  territories  and 
the  new  states  to  be  formed  therefrom,  all  questions 
pertaining  to  slavery  were  to  be  referred  to  the  people 
residing  therein. 

Third.  That  the  committee  proposed  to  carry  these 


STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS.  159 

propositions  and  principles  into  effect  in  the  precise 
language  of  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850.  .  .  . 
Mr.  President,  the  Senators  from  Ohio  and  Massachu- 
setts (Mr.  Chase  and  Mr.  Sumner)  have  taken  the  liberty 
to  impeach  my  motives  in  bringing  forward  this  meas- 
ure. I  desire  to  know  by  what  right  they  arraign  me, 
or  by  what  authority  they  impute  to  me  other  and  dif- 
ferent motives  than  those  which  I  have  assigned.  I 
have  shown  from  the  record  that  I  advocated  and  voted 
for  the  same  principles  and  provisions  in  the  compro- 
mise acts  of  1850,  which  are  embraced  in  this  bill.  I 
have  proven  that  I  put  the  same  construction  upon 
those  measures  immediately  after  their  adoption  that 
is  given  in  the  report  which  I  submitted  this  session 
from  the  Committee  on  Territories.  I  have  shown  that 
the  Legislature  of  Illinois  at  its  first  session,  after  those 
measures  were  enacted,  passed  resolutions  approving 
them,  and  declaring  that  the  same  great  principles  of 
self-government  should  be  incorporated  into  all  terri- 
torial organizations.  Yet,  sir,  in  the  face  of  these  facts, 
these  senators  have  the  hardihood  to  declare  that  this 
was  all  an  "  after- thought "  on  my  part,  conceived  for 
the  first  time  during  the  present  session;  and  that  the 
measure  is  offered  as  a  bid  for  presidential  votes!  Are 
they  incapable  of  conceiving  that  an  honest  man  can 
do  a  right  thing  from  worthy  motives?  I  must  be  per- 
mitted to  tell  those  senators  that  their  experience  in 
seeking  political  preferment  does  not  furnish  a  safe  rule 
by  which  to  judge  the  character  and  principles  of  other 
senators.  ...  If,  in  the  language  of  the  report  of 
the  Committee,  you  withdraw  the  slavery  question 
from  the  halls  of  Congress  and  the  political  arena,  and 
commit  it  to  the  arbitrament  of  those  who  are  imme- 
diately interested  in  and  alone  responsible  for  its  conse- 
quences, there  is  nothing  left  out  of  which  sectional 
parties  can  be  organized.  .  .  .  When  the  people  of 
the  North  shall  all  be  rallied  under  one  banner,  and 
the  whole  South  marshalled  under  another  banner,  and 
each  section  excited  to  frenzy  and  madness  by  hostility 
to  the  institutions  of  the  other,  then  the  patriot  may 
well  tremble  for  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union.  With- 
draw the  slavery  question  from  the  political  arena,  and 
remove  it  to  the  states  and  territories  each  to  decide 


160  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

for  itself,  such  a  catastrophe  can  never  happen.  Then 
you  will  never  be  able  to  tell,  by  any  senator's  vote  for 
or  against  any  measure,  from  what  state  or  section  of 
the  Union  he  comes.  .  .  .  Mr.  President,  I  have  not 
brought  this  question  forward  as  a  northern  man  or  as 
a  southern  man.  I  am  unwilling  to  recognize  such  divi- 
sions and  distinctions.     .     .     . 

I  have  nothing  to  say  about  northern  rights  or  south- 
ern rights.  I  know  of  no  such  divisions  or  distinctions 
under  the  Constitution. — Cited  in  Sheahan,  pp.  223,  22!*, 
225,  227,  253,  260. 

In  a  speech  July  4,  1854,  at  Philadelphia,  he 
used  this  language  in  regard  to  the  Know- 
Nothing  Party  and  its  doctrines: 

No  principle  of  political  action  could  have  been  de- 
vised more  hostile  to  the  genius  of  our  institutions,  more 
repugnant  to  the  Constitution  than  those  which  are  said 
to  form  the  test  of  membership  in  this  Society  of  "Know- 
nothings.  "  To  proscribe  a  man  in  this  country  on  ac- 
count of  his  birthplace  or  religious  faith  is  subversive 
of  all  our  ideas  and  principles  of  civil  and  religious  free- 
dom. It  isrevolting  to  our  sense  of  justice  and  right. 
It  is  derogatory  to  the  character  of  our  forefathers,  who 
were  all  immigrants  from  the  Old  World,  some  at  a 
earlier  and  some  at  a  later  period.  .  .  ,  And  if,  after 
struggling  as  our  forefathers  struggled  for  centuries  in 
their  native  land  against  civil  and  religious  persecution, 
we  and  our  children  shall  be  finally  borne  down  and 
trampled  under  the  heel  of  despotism,  we  can  still  fol- 
low their  example— flee  to  the  wilderness  and  find  an 
asylum  in  Nebraska,  where  the  principles  of  self-gov- 
ernment have  been  firmly  established  in  the  organic 
act  which  recently  passed  Congress.— Cited  in  Sheahan, 
pp.  269,  271. 

The  Government  of  Kansas: 

Hence  no  state  has  a  right  to  pass  any  law  or  do  or 
authorize  any  act,  with  the  view  to  influence  or  change 
the  domestic  policy  of  any  other  state  or  Territory  of 
the  Union,  more  than  it  would  with  reference  to 
France  or  England,  or  any  other  foreign  state  with 
which  we  are  at  peace, 


STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS.  16l 

Indeed,  every  state  of  this  Union,  is  under  higher 
obligations  to  observe  a  friendly  forbearance  and  gen- 
erous comity  toward  each  other  .nember  of  the  confed- 
eracy than  the  laws  of  nations  can  impose  on  foreign 
states.  While  foreign  states  are  restrained  from  all 
acts  of  aggression  and  unkindness  only  by  the  spirit  of 
comity  which  the  laws  of  nations  enjoin  upon  all 
friendly  powers,  we  have  assumed  the  additional  obli  - 
gation  to  obey  the  Constitution  which  secures  to  every 
state  the  right  to  control  its  own  internal  affairs.  .  . 
—Cited  in  Sheahan,  p.  290. 

The  Lecompton  Constitution;  Douglas  breaks 
with  the  President;  December  9,  1857: 

Sir,  my  honor  is  pledged:  and  before  it  shall  be  tar- 
nished I  will  take  whatever  consequences  personal  to 
myself  may  come.  ...  I  will  go  as  far  as  any  of 
you  to  save  the  party.  I  have  as  much  heart  in  the 
great  cause  that  binds  us  together  as  any  man  living. 
I  will  sacrifice  anything  short  of  principle  and  honor 
for  the  peace  of  the  party;  but  if  the  party  will  not 
stand  by  its  privileges,  its  faith,  its  pledges,  I  will 
stand  there  and  abide  whatever  consequences  may 
result  from  the  position.  .  .  .  But,  I  am  told  on  all 
sides,  "Oh,  just  wait;  the  pro-slavery  clause  will  be 
voted  down."  That  does  not  obviate  any  of  my  objec- 
tions; it  does  not  diminish  any  of  them.  You  have  no 
more  right  to  force  a  free-state  Constitution  on  Kansas 
than  a  slave-state  Constitution.  If  Kansas  wants  a 
slave-state  constitution,  she  has  a  right  to  it;  if  she 
wants  a  free-state  Constitution,  she  has  a  right  to  it. 
It  is  none  of  my  business  which  way  the  Slavery  clause 
is  decided.  I  care  not  whether  it  is  voted  down  or 
voted  up.  .  .  .  Ignore  Lecompton,  ignore  Topeka; 
treat  both  those  party  movements  as  irregular  and  void ; 
pass  a  fair  bill — the  one  that  we  framed  ourselves 
when  we  were  acting  as  a  unit;  have  a  fair  election — 
and  you  will  have  peace  in  the  Democratic  party,  and 
peace  throughout  the  country,  in  ninety  days.  ... 
Mr.  President,  I  come  back  to  the  question,  ought  we 
to  receive  Kansas  into  the  Union  with  the  Lecompton 
Constitution?  Is  there  satisfactory  evidence  that  it  is 
the  act  and  deed  of  that  people— that  it  embodies  their 


162  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

will?  Is  the  evidence  satisfactory  that  the  people  of 
that  Territory  have  been  left  perfectly  free  to  form  and 
regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way? 
I  think  not.  .  .  .  Article  7,  Section  1,  of  its  Con- 
stitution, reads:  "  The  right  of  property  is  before  and 
higher  than  any  constitutional  sanction ;  and  the  right 
of  the  owner  of  a  slave  to  such  slave  and  its  increase 
is  the  same  and  as  inviolable  as  the  right  of  the  owner 
of  any  property  whatever. "...  The  proposition  is. 
that  a  citizen  of  Virginia  has  rights  in  a  free  state 
which  a  citizen  of  a  free  state  cannot  himself  have- 
.  .  .  If  that  proposition  is  true,  the  creed  of  the 
Democratic  party  is  false.  The  principle  of  the  Kan- 
sas-Nebraska Bill  is,  that  "each  state  and  each  Terri- 
tory shall  be  left  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regu- 
late its  domestic  institutions  in  its  own  way, 
subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States."  I  claim  that  Illinois  has  the  sovereign 
right  to  prohibit  slavery,  a  right  as  undeniable  as 
that  the  sovereignty  of  Virginia  may  authorize  its  ex- 
istence. We  have  the  same  right  to  prohibit  it  that 
you  have  to  recognize  and  protect  it.  ...  I  do  not 
recognize  the  right  of  the  President  or  his  cabinet,  no 
matter  what  my  respect  may  be  for  them,  to  tell  me 
nay  duty  in  the  Senate  Chamber.  The  President  has 
his  duties  to  perform  under  the  Constitution,  and  he  is 
responsible  to  his  constituency.  A  senator  has  his 
duties  to  perform  here  under  the  Constitution  and  ac- 
cording to  his  oath,  and  he  is  responsible  to  the 
sovereign  state  which  he  represents  as  his  constituency. 
.  .  .  For  my  own  part,  Mr.  President,  come  what 
may,  I  intend  to  vote,  speak,  and  act  according  to  my 
own  sense  of  duty  so  long  a3 1  hold  a  seat  in  this  cham- 
ber. I  have  no  defense  of  my  Democracy.  I  have  no 
professions  to  make  of  my  fidelity.  I  have  no  vindica- 
tion to  make  of  my  course.  Let  it  speak  for  itself. 
...  I  have  no  professions  to  make  upon  any  of 
these  points.  I  intend  to  perforin  my  duty  in  accord- 
ance with  my  own  convictions.  Neither  the  frowns  of 
power  nor  the  influence  of  patronage  will  change  my 
action,  or  drive  me  from  my  principles.  I  stand 
firmly,  immovably  upon  those  great  principles  of  self- 
government  and  state  sovereignty,  upon  which  the 


STEPHEN   A,    DOUGLAS.  163 

campaign  was  fought  and  the  election  won.  .  .  . 
I  will  stand  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
with  all  its  compromises,  and  perform  all  my  obliga- 
tions under  it.  I  will  stand  by  the  American  Union  as 
it  exists  under  the  Constitution. — Cited  in  Sheahau,pp. 
318,  319,  3k0,  347,  351,  352,  353. 

The  Pacific  Railroad  Bill:  April  17,  1858; 
Internal  Improvements: 

Mr.  President, — I  have  witnessed  with  deep  regret 
the  indications  that  this  measure  is  to  be  defeated  at 
the  present  session  of  Congress.  I  had  hoped  that  this 
Congress  would  signalize  itself  by  inaugurating  the 
great  measure  of  connecting  the  Mississipi  Valley  with 
the  Pacific  Ocean  by  a  railroad.  I  had  supposed 
that  the  people  of  the  United  States  had  decided  the 
question  at  the  last  Presidential  election  in  a  manner 
so  emphatic  as  to  leave  no  doubt  that  their  will  was  to 
be  carried  into  effect.  I  believe  that  all  the  presiden- 
tial candidates  at  the  last  election  were  committed  to 
the  measure.     .     .     . 

I  have  sometimes  thought  that  the  extreme  northern 
route,  known  as  the  Stevens'  route,  was  the  best,  as 
furnishing  better  grass,  more  timber,  more  water, 
more  of  those  elements  necessary  in  constructing,  re- 
pairing, operating,  and  maintaining  a  road,  than  any 
other.    ".     .     . 

But,  sir,  I  am  unwilling  to  lose  this  great"  measure 
merely  because  of  a  difference  of*  opinion  as  to  what 
shall  be  the  pass  selected  in  the  Rocky  Mountains 
through  which  the  road  shall  run.  I  believe  it  is  a 
great  national  measure.  I  believe  it  is  the  greatest 
practical  measure  now  pending  before  the  country.     . 

I  have  regretted  to  see  the  question  of  sectional  ad- 
vantages brought  into  this  discussion.  If  you  are  to 
have  but  one  road,  fairness  and  j  astice  would  plainly 
indicate  that  that  one  should  be  located  as  near  the 
centre  as  practicable.  The  Missouri  River  is  as  near 
the  centre  and  the  line  of  this  road  is  as  near 
as  it  can  be  made;  and  if  there  is  but  one  to  be  made, 
the  route  now  indicated,  in  my  opinion,  is  fair,  is  just, 
and  ought  to  be  taken.  I  have  heretofore  been  of  the 
opinion  that  we  ought  to  have  three  roads:  one  in  the 


16i  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

centre,  one  in  the  extreme  south,  and  one  in  the  ex-- 
treme  north.— Cited  in  Sheahan,  pp.  372,  374,  375. 

Extract  from  a  campaign  speech  made  at 
Chicago,  1S58;  Lincoln  had  already  made  his 
Divided-House  doctrine  speech: 

It  is  an  expression  of  your  devotion  to  that  great/ 
principle  of  self-government  (cries  of  "Hear,"  "hear") 
to  v  hich  my  life  for  many  years  past  has  been,  and  in 
the  whole  future  will  be  devoted.  (Immense  cheering) 
If  there  is  any  one  principle  dearer  and  more  sacred 
than  all  others  in  free  governments,  it  is  that  which 
asserts  the  exclusive  right  of  a  free  people  to  form  and 
adopt  their  own  fundamental  law,  and  to  manage  and 
regulate  their  own  internal  affairs  and  domestic  insti- 
tutions.    (Applause)— Cited  in  Sheahan,  p.  406. 

The  "  Freeport  Doctrine"  of  "unfriendly 
legislation."  The  Lincoln-Douglas  debate  at 
Freeport,  111.,  1858: 

The  next  question  propounded  to  me  by  Mr.  Lincoln 
is,  "Can  the  people  of  a  territory  in  any  lawful  way, 
against  the  wishes  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States, 
exclude  slavery  from  their  limits  prior  to  the  forma- 
tion of  a  state  Constitution. "  I  answer  emphatically, 
as  Mr.  Lincoln  has  heard  me  answer  a  hundred  times 
from  every  stump  in  Illinois,  that  in  my  opinion  the 
people  of  a  territory  can,  by  lawful  means,  exclude 
slavery  from  their  limits  prior  to  the  formation  of  a 
state  Constitution.  Mr.  Lincoln  knew  that  I  had  an- 
swered that  question  over  and  over  again.  It  matters 
not  what  way  the  Supreme  Court  may  hereafter  decide 
as  to  the  abstract  question  whether  slavery  may  or  may 
not  go  into  a  territory  under  the  Constitution,  the  peo- 
ple have  the  lawful  means  to  introduce  it  or  exclude  it 
as  they  please,  for  the  reason  that  slavery  cannot  exist 
a  «ay  or  an  hour  anywhere  unless  it  is  supported  by 
local  police  regulations.  Those  police  regulations  can 
only  be  established  by  the  local  legislature,  and  if  the 
people  are  opposed  to  slavery  they  will  elect  represent- 
atives to  that  body  who  will,  by  unfriendly  legislation, 
effectually  prevent  the  introduction  of  it  into  their 
midst.    If,  on  the  contrary,  they  are  for  it,  tjkeir  legis* 


Stephen  a.  douglas.  165 

lation  will  favor  its  extension.  Hence,  no  matter  what 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  may  be  on  that  ab- 
stract question,  still  the  right  of  the  people  to  make  a 
slave  territory  or  a  free  territory  is  perfect  and  com- 
plete under  the  Nebraska  Bill.  I  hope  Mr.  Lincoln  deems 
my  answer  satisfactory  on  that  point.  .  .  .  The 
fourth  question  of  Mr.  Lincoln  is,  "Are  you  in  favor  of 
acquiring  additional  territory  in  disregard  as  to  how 
such  acquisition  may  affect  the  Union  on  the  slavery 
question?"  This  question  is  very  ingeniously  and 
cunningly  put.  ...  I  answer  that  whenever  it  be- 
comes necessary,  in  our  growth  and  progress,  to  acquire 
more  territory,  that  I  am  in  favor  of  it,  without  refer- 
ence to  the  question  of  slavery,  and  when  we  have  ac- 
quired it,  I  will  leave  the  people  free  to  do  as  they 
please,  either  to  make  it  slave  or  free  territory,  as  they 
prefer.— Cited  in  Sheahan,  pp.  427,  428,  429. 

The  Mormons;  a  speech  at  Springfield,  1857: 
If,  upon  a  full  investigation,  these  representations 
shall  prove  true,  they  will  establish  the  fact  that  the 
inhabitants  of  Utah,  as  a  community,  are  outlaws  and 
alien  enemies,  unfit  to  exercise  the  right  of  self-govern- 
ment under  the  organic  act,  and  unworthy  to  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  Union  as  a  state,  when  their  only  object 
in  seeking  admission  is  to  interpose  the  sovereignty  of 
the  state  as  an  invincible  shield  to  protect  them  in 
their  treason  and  crime,  debauchery  and  infamy.  (Ap- 
plause.) .  .  .  Some  other  and  more  effectual  remedy 
must  be  devised  and  applied.  In  my  opinion  the  first 
step  should  be  the  absolute  and  unconditional  repeal  of 
the  organic  act— blotting  the  territorial  government 
out  of  existence --upon  the  ground  that  they  are  alien 
enemies  and  outlaws,  denying  their  allegiance  and  de- 
fying the  authority  of  the  United  States.  (Immense 
applause.)  The  territorial  government  once  abolished, 
the  country  would  revert  to  its  primitive  condition, 
prior  to  the  act  of  1850,  "under  the  sole  and  exclusive 
jurisdiction  of  the  United  States"  and  should  be  placed 
under  the  operation  of  the  act  of  Congress  of  the  30th 
of  April.  1790,  and  the  various  acts  supplemental 
thereto  alid  amendatory  thereof,  "providing  for  the 
punishment  of  crimes  against  the  United  States  within 
any  fort,  arsenal,  dock-yard,  magazine,  or  any  other 


i66  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

place  or  district  of  country,  under  the  sole  and  exclu- 
sive jurisdiction  of  the  United  States." — Cited  in  Shea- 
han, pp.  461,  .'/'.v. 

Reopening  of  the  African  Slave  Trade:  a 
letter     to    John     L.     Peyton,     Stanton,     Va., 

1859: 

Neither  have  you  misapprehended  my  opinions  in  re- 
spect to  the  African  slave  trade.  That  question  seri- 
ously disturbed  the  harmony  of  the  convention  which 
framed  the  federal  Constitution.  .     . 

I  stand  firmly  by  this  compromise  and  by  all  the 
other  compromises  of  the  Constitution,  and  shall  use 
my  best  efforts  to  carry  each  and  all  of  them  into 
faithful  execution,  in  the  sense  and  with  the  under- 
standing in  which  they  were  originally  adopted.  In 
accordance  with  this  compromise,  I  am  irreconcilablj- 
opposed  to  the  revival  of  the  African  slave  trade,  in 
any  form  and  under  any  circumstances.— Cited  in 
Sheahan,  p.  4GG. 

Senate  Chamber,  January  23,  1860,  Douglas 
speaks  for  a  law  against  invasions  of  the  states, 
such  as  that  by  John  Brown,  and  speaks  in 
these  words  concerning-  the  results  of  Lincoln's 
doctrine,  as  stated  in  the  first  sentence: 

"A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  I 
believe  this  government  cannot  endure  permanently, 
half  slave  and  half  free."     .     .     . 

The  declaration  is  that  the  North  must  combine  as  a 
sectional  party  and  carry  on  the  agitation  so  fiercely, 
up  to  the  very  borders  of  the  slaveholding  states,  that 
the  master  dare  not  sleep  at  night  for  fear  that  the 
robbers,  the  John  Browns,  will  come  and  set  his  house 
on  fire,  and  murder  the  women  and  children  before 
morning.  It  is  to  surround  the  slaveholding  states  by 
a  cordon  of  free  states,  to  use  the  language  of  the  sen- 
ator; to  hem  them  in,  in  order  that  you  may  smother 
them  out.  The  Senator  avowed,  in  his  speech  to-day, 
their  object  to  be  to  hem  in  the  slave  states,  in  order 
that  slavery  may  die  out.  .  .  .  Cited  in  Sheahan, 
p.  5U. 


STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS.  167 


QUESTIONS. 

(1)  Position  of  Douglas  regarding  Jackson's  suspen- 
sion of  the  right  of  habeas  corpus.  (2)  Meaning  of 
habeas  corpus.  (3)  What  the  essential  point  in  his 
argument?  (4)  Is  the  argument  good?  (5)  To  what 
result  would  such  a  doctrine  lead? 

(1)  What  view  did  Douglas  take  in  regard  to  the 
justice  of  the  Mexican  War?  (2)  Compare  his  position 
with  that  of  Webster;  with  that  of  Calhoun.  (3)  What 
reasons  does  he  give  for  his  position?  (4)  Who  was 
Santa  Anna?  (5)  What  treaty  is  here  discussed?  (6) 
What  charge  does  he  make  against  the  Federalists  and 
the  Whigs? 

(1)  Was  Douglas  an  expansionist?  (2)  Bring  to- 
gether all  his  arguments  for  or  against.  (3)  What 
territory  did  he  favor  annexing?  (4)  What  conditions 
did  he  lay  down  to  be  applied  to  annexed  territory? 
(5)  Compare  his  arguments  on  this  point  with  Web- 
ster's, Clay's  and  Calhoun's.  (6)  Are  their  arguments 
applicable  to-day?  (7)  Are  all  of  Douglas's  arguments 
consistent  with  each  other?  (8)  Why  did  he  oppose 
filibustering?  (9)  How  fast  did  he  want  territory? 
(10)  How  do  you  think  he  would  wish  to  treat  the 
Philippines  to-day? 

(1)  What  was  Douglas's  theory  in  regard  to  the  con- 
trol or  government  of  the  Territories?  (2)  Bring  to- 
gether the  passages  that  bear  on  this  subject.  (3) 
What  leading  principle  did  he  claim  was  established 
by  the  compromise  of  1850?  (4)  How  did  he  propose 
to  apply  the  principle  in  1854?  (5)  Was  Douglas  a 
compromiser?  (6)  Was  he  a  man  of  courage?  (7) 
Find  out  what  the  Chase  Amendment  was.  (8)  How 
did  he  propose  to  amend  it?  (9)  How  did  Douglas  ex- 
pect to  remove  the  slavery  question  from  American 
politics?  (10)  How  did  he  feel  towards  Chase  and 
Sumner  ? 

(1)  What  were  his  views  in  regard  to  the  rights  of 
foreigners?  (2)  What  did  he  think  about  religious  pro- 
scription? (3)  What  party  did  he  oppose  on  account 
of  these  principles?  (4)  How  did  he  stand  in  regard  to 
admitting  Kansas  as  a  state  under  the  Lecompton  con- 
stitution? (5)  Why  his  position?  (6)  What  article  in 
the  constitution  did  he  especially  condemn?  Why? 
(7)  How  did  he  feel  toward  President  Buchanan  on  this 
subject?  (8)  Did  he  propose  to  be  dictated  to?  (9) 
What  feeling  had  he  about  the  Pacific  railroads? 
(10  What  did  he  think  of  the  effects  of  Lincoln's  Di- 
vided House  doctrine?  HI)  What  is  the  "Freeport 
Doctrine"?  (12)  Were  his  views  in  regard  to  the  power 
of  the  Mormons  in  harmony  with  his  other  doctrines? 
(13)  How  did  he  regard  the  African  Slave  Trade?  (14) 
Compare  his  views  on  slavery  wTith  those  of  Sumner. 
(15)  Compare  them  with  Clay's;  with  Calhoun's. 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD 


Born  in  New  Jersey,  1801.  Graduate  of  Union 
College.  Settled  at  Auburn,  N.  Y.  Member  of 
the  New  York  legislature,  1830-1832.  Governor 
of  New  York,  1838-1842.  Senator,  1851-1861. 
Secretary  of  state,  1861-1869.  "Higher  Law" 
doctrine  speech,  1850.  "Irrepressible  Conflict" 
speech,  1858.  Candidate  for  nomination  for 
President,  1856,  1860.  Trip  around  the  world, 
1870-1871.    Died,  1872. 


12 


CHAPTER  VIII 
WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD 

PERHAPS   William   H.    Seward   was    the 
greatest  among  the  political  opponents 
of  slavery.     He  ranks   with    Chase  and 
Douglas.     In  general,  he  agreed  with  the  for- 
mer, and  during  most  of  his  career  he  was  a 
strenuous  opponent  of  the  latter. 

Seward  was  born  in  New  Jersey,  and  edu- 
cated in  its  academies  and  at  Union  College, 
New  York.  He  graduated  at  the  latter  in 
1821,  ranking  as  one  of  its  most  distinguished 
scholars.  He  had  been  ready  to  enter  the 
Junior  class  when  he  was  only  fifteen,  but  on 
account  of  his  extreme  youth  he  was  prevailed 
upon  to  enter  the  Sophomore.  He  withdrew 
to  teach  when  nineteen,  hence  did  not  gradu- 
ate till  he  had   reached  his  twenty-first  year. 

He  was  married  in  1824,  and  settled  down  at 
Auburn,  where  he  continued  to  live  till  his 
death. 

Election  of  mayors  of  cities  by  the  people. 
One  of  the  earliest  speeches  of  Seward,  April 
22,  1831,  was  in  favor  of  this  democratic  prin- 
ciple.    In  part,  he  said: 

What  is  the  state  of  the  question  before  the  Senate? 
The  provision  required  by  the  city  of  New  York  is, 
that  the  mayor  of  that  city  shall  be  elected  by  the 
people.     .     .     . 

It  is  admitted  that  the  office  of  mayor  is  one  of  local 
interests,  duties  and  responsibilities,  and  that  it  is,  in 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD.  173 

the  abstract,  right  and  proper  that  the  mayor  should 
be  elected  by  the  people  in  that  city.  Why,  then, 
should  not  this  provision,  conceded  to  be  abstractly 
right  and  proper,  be  adopted?  Is  it  to  be  rejected  on 
the  ground  of  distrust  of  the  people?  No  such  distrust 
is  avowed,  and  I  am  therefore  bound  to  believe  none  is 
indulged.     .     .     . 

Again,  sir,  the  tendency  of  all  our  principles  of  gov- 
ernment is  to  democracy;  the  new  Constitution  took 
the  appointment  from  the  council  of  appointment,  and 
conferred  it  upon  the  immediate  representatives  of 
the  people.  There  is  but  one  more  change  before  you 
reach  absolute  democracy;  that  is  the  one  now  pre 
posed,  and  conceded  to  be  proper.  Are  gentlemen 
afraid  that  the  people,  once  invested  with  this  power, 
will  come  back  again  and  sue  us  to  relieve  them  from 
its  responsibilities?  Such  an  instance  would  be  anom- 
alous in  the  history  of  government.—  Seward,  Works, 
Vol.  I,  pp.  10,  11,  12. 

January  10,  1831:,  he  opposed  the  passage  by 
the  legislature  of  New  York  of  a  resolution  ap- 
proving the  removal  of  the  deposits  from  the 
National  Bank,  by  Jackson,  in  this  language: 

The  usurpation  of  the  secretary's  powers  is  not  the 
moet  alarming  feature  in  this  unprecedented  transac- 
tion. It  is  the  defiance  of  the  supervisory  power  of 
Congress  uttered  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States.  Yes,  sir,  in  this  very  document,  under  the 
President's  own  hand,  we  are  told  that  the  power  of 
the  secretary  over  these  deposits  is  unqualified,  and  as 
the  secretary  is  in  all  things  responsible  to  the  execu- 
tive., it  follows  that  the  power  of  the  President  over 
them  is  also  unqualified.     .     .     . 

The  first  of  these  offences  is,  that  two  years  ago,  in  a 
debate  similar  to  this,  I  defended  the  principles  of 
anti-masonry  in  this  house.  Now,  sir,  with  all  my  so- 
licitude to  secure  the  unreserved  esteem  of  my  honor- 
able friend,  the  act  of  which  he  complains  is  precisely 
that  one  for  which,  of  all  others,  I  cannot  admit  his 
censure  to  be  just.  Sir,  my  honorable  friend  will  rec- 
ollect that  I  was  then,  as  I  am  now,  an  anti-mason.  I 
was  sent  here  by  anti-masons.     I  am  not,  as  the  gentle- 


174  AMERICAN   HISTORY  STUDIES. 

man  well  knows,  the  man  to  profess  principles  in  one 
place  I  am  afraid  or  ashamed  to  avow  in  another.  I 
am  not  the  man,  when  sent  here  because  I  am  known 
to  entertain  political  principles  approved  by  my  con- 
stituents, to  abandon  those  principles  for  any  which 
shall  be  more  popular  in  this  place.  Under  such  cir- 
cumstances, when  "  the  blessed  spirit"  of  anti-masonry 
was  traduced  in  the  Senate,  I  could  not  sit  by  in 
silence.     Nor  should  I  now.     .     .     . 

.  .  .  It  is  my  principle  that  it  is  the  business  of 
the  legislature  to  confine  themselves  within  the  sphere 
of  duties  prescribed  by  the  Constitution.  It  is  his  that 
the  legislature  may  safely  transcend  that  sphere  to  as- 
sume the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  Congress.  It  is 
my  principle  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to 
resist  usurpation  of  legislative  powers  by  the  execu- 
tive. It  is  his  that  it  is  safer  to  trust  to  executive  dis- 
cretion than  to  legislative  wisdom.  It  is  mine  that 
the  governing  and  sole  motive  in  all  legislation  ought 
to  be  the  security  of  the  government  and  the  good  of 
the  people.  It  is  his  that  the  powers  of  government 
ought  to  be  so  wielded  as  to  subserve  the  ambition  of 
him  who  happens  to  be  the  favorite  of  the  predominant 
party  of  the  day.— Works,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  2k,  33-34-,  35. 

In  his  annual  message  of  1839  we  find  this 
language: 

All  institutions  of  government  are  imperfect,  and 
subject  to  the  law  of  improvement.  Despotism  denies 
this.  It  holds  that  institutions  are  complete,  and  that 
laws  are  wise,  because  they  are  old.  It  maintains  that 
error  is  sanctified  by  prescription,  and  compels  the  sub- 
mission which  renders  it  invulnerable.  A  different 
principle  prevails  in  America.  Antiquity  has  a  shrine 
and  worship  in  all  lands  but  this.  We  have  learned, 
that  as  the  intelligence  of  people  increases,  the  power  of 
the  government  may  safely  be  abridged;  that  error  must 
be  separated  from  our  institutions  before  it  becomes  in- 
separable; and  that  the  best  laws,  unless  modified  ac- 
cording to  the  ever- varying  conditions  of  society,  oper- 
ate injuriously  or  fall  into  disuse.     .    .     . 

Every  other  vice  of  government  is  more  endurable 
than  delay  in  the  administration  of  justice.  Yet 
this  is  the  vice  that  most  easily  besets  republican 
institutions.     .     .     . 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD.  175 

The  public  service  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  profes- 
sion. The  healthful  action  of  our  whole  system  de- 
pends upon  the  responsibility  and  the  frequent  change 
of  agents.  He  is  as  much  a  pensioner  who  receives  a 
compensation  exceeding  the  value  of  his  services,  as 
one  who  receives  allowance  from  the  public  treasury. 
Of  pensioners,  this  country  ought  to  know  only  those 
whose  reward  is  a  stinted  requittal  for  perils,  priva- 
tions, and  sufferings,  in  the  achievement  and  defense  of 
our  liberties.  .  .  .  Conscientiously  holding  the 
principle  of  universal  suffrage,  and  indulging  no  ap- 
prehension of  evil  from  its  practical  operation,  if 
fairly  carried  out,  with  proper  safeguards  against  its 
abuse,  I  am  yet  free  to  confess  my  fears,  that  it  will 
prove  a  fatal  franchise,  unless  such  safeguards  be 
applied.     .    .     . 

Thirteen  years'  experience  has  proved  the  inadequacy 
of  all  our  thoroughfares  for  the  transportation  of  per- 
sons and  property  between  the  frontier  and  tide- waters. 
It  is  submitted  whether  sound  policy  does  not  require 
that  the  enlargement  of  the  Erie  canal  be  completed  as 
speedily  as  may  be  consistent  with  the  public  con- 
venience. This  generation  may  as  well  participate  in 
its  manifold  advantages  as  resign  them.  —  Works,  Vol 
II,  pp.  190,  191,  193,  194,  197,  199. 

We  find  this  discussion  in  his  message  as 
governor  of  New  York,  1840: 

.  .  .  The  advantages  of  education  ought  to  be  se- 
cured to  many,  especially  in  our  large  cities,  whom 
orphanage,  the  depravity  of  parents,  or  other  forms  of 
accident  or  misfortune  seem  to  have  doomed  to  hope- 
less poverty  and  ignorance.  Their  intellects  are  as  sus- 
ceptible of  expansion,  of  improvement,  or  refinement, 
of  elevation,  and  of  direction,  as  those  minds  which, 
through  the  favor  of  Providence  are  permitted  to  de- 
velop themselves  under  the  influence  of  better  for- 
tunes; they  inherit  the  common  lot  to  struggle  against 
temptations,  necessities  and  vices;  they  are  to  assume 
the  same  domestic,  social  and  political  relations;  and 
they  are  born  to  the  same  ultimate  destiny.  .  .  . 
Since  we  have  opened  our  country  and  all  its  fullness 
to  the  oppressed  of  every  nation,  we  should  evince  wis- 
dom equal  to  such  generosity  by  qualifying  their  chil- 
dren for  the  high  responsibilities  of  citizenship.     .     .     . 


176  AMERICAN    HISTORY   STUDIES. 

A  requisition  was  made  upon  me  in  July  last,  by  the 
executive  of  Virginia,  for  the  delivery  of  three  person- 
as  fugitives  from  justice,  charged  with  having  felo- 
niously stolen  a  negro  slave  in  that  state.  I  declined  to 
comply  with  the  requisition,  upon  the  grounds  that  the 
right  to  demand,  and  the  reciprocal  obligation  to  sur- 
render, fugitives  from  justice,  between  sovereign  and 
independent  nations,  as  defined  by  the  law  of  nations, 
included  only  those  cases  in  which  the  acts  constitut- 
ing the  offence  charged  were  recognized  as  crimes  by 
the  universal  laws  of  all  civilized  countries;  that  the 
object  of  the  provision  contained  in  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States,  authorizing  the  demand  and  sur- 
render of  fugitives  charged  with  treason,  felony,  or 
other  crime,  was  to  recognize  and  establish  this  princi- 
ple of  the  law  of  nations  in  the  mutual  relations  of  the 
states  as  independent,  equal  and  sovereign  communi- 
ties; that  the  acts  charged  upon  the  persons  demanded, 
were  not  recognized  as  criminal  by  the  laws  of  this 
state,  or  by  the  universal  law  of  all  civilized  countries; 
and  that  consequently  the  case  did  not  fall  within  the 
provision  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.— 
Works,  Vol  II,  pp.  215,  216,  221-222. 

From  message  of  1842: 

A  governmental  management  of  railroads  would  be 
an  experiment  here,  and  it  is  supposed  to  have  been 
unsuccessful  elsewhere;  although  it  is  not  obvious  why, 
with  diligence,  skill,  and  experience,  equal  to  what  are 
employed  in  managing  the  canals,  a  system  of  super- 
vision of  railroads  could  not  be  adopted.  There  is 
much  force  in  the  argument,  that  it  would  increase 
central  influence;  yet,  it  is  not  clear  that  the  influence 
of  corporations  would  be  more  harmless,  and  there  is 
much  reason  to  believe  that  the  more  speedy  diffusion 
of  intelligence  will  neutralize  such  influence  in  either 
form.     .     .     .     —Works,  Vol.  II,  p.  317. 

Extracts  from  a  speech  at  a  Whig  mass  meet- 
ing, in  Yates  county,  New  York,  October  29, 
1844: 

Universal  political  equality  among  all  the  subjects 
of  the  government  was  proclaimed  in  the  very  outset 
of  the  Revolution  as  an  element  of  this  democracy. 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD.  177 

The  principle  was  asserted,  but  it  was  only  partially 
established.  .  .  .  Slavery  is  the  bane  of  our  social 
condition.  It  divides  the  empire  into  two  portions, 
between  whom  it  perpetually  prevents  any  harmony  of 
fiscal  economy.  It  arrays  the  south  against  the  north. 
It  exposes  us  to  danger  from  abroad,  and  has  once 
brought  the  country  to  the  verge  of  disunion.  All 
these  evils  happen  because  slavery  is  an  aristocratic  in- 
stitution compared  with  our  democracy.  .  .  .  The 
conscience  of  the  people  is  aroused.  The  laws  of  po- 
litical economy,  combining  with  the  inevitable  tend- 
encies of  population,  are  hastening  emancipation,  and 
all  the  labors  of  statesmen  and  politicians  to  prevent  it 
are  ineffectual.  .  .  .  Heretofore  they  told  us  that 
we  had  nothing  to  do  with  slavery ;  that  it  was  no  con- 
cern of  ours.  But  now  the  slaveholder  has  brought  it 
home  to  us.  It  is  our  concern  now,  God  be  praised!  It 
is  a  national  concern.  The  annexation  of  Texas  to  en- 
large and  fortify  the  slave  trade,  is  forsooth  "a  great 
democratic  measure. "  Out  upon  such  democracy!  .  . 
.  True  democracy  is  equality  and  liberty.  The  democ- 
racy of  the  Texas  party  is  aristocracy  for  the  white 
race,  and  bondage  for  the  black.  .  .  .  —  Works,  Vol. 
Ill,  pp.  269,  270,  271,  272. 

Front  a  speech  at  Cleveland,  O.,  October  26, 

1848: 

The  first  principle  of  our  duty  as  Americans  is  to 
preserve  the  integrity  of  the  Union.     .     .     . 

The  second  principle  of  American  citizenship  is, 
that  our  democratic  system  must  be  preserved  and 
perfected.  That  system  is  founded  in  the  natural 
equality  of  all  men — not  alone  all  American  men,  nor 
alone  all  white  men,  but  all  men  of  every  country, 
clime  and  complexion,  are  equal— not  made  equal  by 
human  laws,  but  born  equal.     .     .     . 

A  third  principle  of  American  citizenship  is,  that 
knowledge  ought  to  be  diffused,  as  well  for  the  safety 
of  the  state,  as  to  promote  the  happiness  of  society. 

A  fourth  principle  is,  that  our  national  resources, 
physical,  moral,  and  intellectual,  ought  to  be  devel- 
oped and  applied  to  increase  the  public  wealth,  and 
enhance  the  convenience  and  comfort  of  the  people. 


178  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

A  fifth  principle  is,  that  peace  and  moderation  are 
indispensable  to  the  preservation  of  republican  institu- 
tions. 

A  sixth  principle  is,  that  slavery  must  be  abolished. 
*  *  * 

"What,  then!"  you  say,  "can  nothing  be  done  for 
freedom  because  the  public  conscience  is  inert?  "  Yes, 
much  can  be  done— everything  can  be  done.  Slavery 
can  be  limited  to  its  present  bounds,  it  can  be  amelio- 
rated, it  can  be  and  must  be  abolished,  and  you  and  I 
can  and  must  do  it.     .     .    . 

Wherein  do  the  strength  and  security  of  slavery  lie? 
You  answer  that  they  lie  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  constitution  and  laws  of  all 
slaveholding  states.  Not  at  all.  They  lie  in  the  erro- 
neous sentiment  of  the  American  people.  Constitutions 
and  laws  can  no  more  rise  above  the  virtue  of  the  peo- 
ple than  the  limpid  stream  can  climb  above  its  native 
spring.  Inculcate  then,  the  love  of  freedom  and  the 
er-"il  rights  of  man,  under  the  paternal  roof;  see  to  it 
L..J  they  are  taught  in  the  schools  and  in  the 
churches;  reform  your  own  code — extend  a  cordial 
welcome  to  the  fugitive  who  lays  his  weary 
limbs  at  your  door,  and  defend  him  as  you  would  your 
paternal  goda.  — Works,  Vol  III,  pp.  293,  301. 

From  a  private  letter  to  H.  C.  Wr.,  of  New- 
York,  1840: 

.  .  .  You  remark  that,  "  even  to  a  partial  observer, 
it  cannot  be  disguised,  that  we,  as  a  party,  have  been 
practicing  efforts  to  secure  the  votes  of  the  Irish,"  and 
your  subsequent  explanations  show  that  I  am  supposed 
to  be  concerned  in  these  ' '  practices. "... 

After  what  I  have  said  you  will  naturally  expect  that 
I  shall  differ  from  you,  in  regard  to  the  opinions  you 
give  concerning  this  class  of  adopted  citizens.  I  do 
not  agree,  "  that  the  lower  order  of  Irish  are  incapable 
of  being  persuaded  by  reason."  I  do  not  think  that 
"  they  have  been  placed  by  the  Divine  Omnipotent  in 
the  lowest  scale  of  creation. "... 

I  think  that  the  Irish  population  to  whom  you  al- 
lude, are  useful,  well-meaning,  and  as  a  mass,  inoffen- 
sive, and  religiously-disposed  citizens.     .     .    . 


WILLIAM  H.   SEWARD.  179 

.  .  .  I  think  them  more  generous,  liberal  and 
disinterested,  than  most  other  classes  of  the  commu- 
nity, reposing  more  than  others  upon  the  consolation  of 
their  religion,  and  less  disposed  to  force  its  tenets  upon 
others.     .     .     . 

If  this  confession  of  faith  seems  strange  to  you,  you 
will  permit  me  to  explain,  that  I  could  not  believe 
otherwise,  without  doing  dishonor  to  a  mother,  emi- 
nent for  many  virtues,  and  to  the  memories  of  humble 
ancestors,  whose  names  will  not  be  saved  from  obscu- 
rity by  the  record  of  any  extraordinary  vices.     .     .     . 

.  .  .  Why  should  an  American  hate  foreigners? 
It  is  to  hate  such  as  his  forefathers  were.  Why  should 
a  foreigner  be  taught  to  hate  Americans?  It  is  to  hate 
what  he  is  most  anxious  his  children  shall  become. 
For  myself,  so  far  from  hating  any  of  my  fellow-citi- 
zens, I  should  shrink  from  myself,  if  I  did  not  recog- 
nize them  all  as  worthy  of  my  constant  solicitude  to 
promote  their  welfare,  and  entitled  of  right,  by  the 
constitution  and.  laws,  and  by  the  higher  laws  of  God 
himself,  to  equal  rights,  equal  privileges,  and  equal 
political  favor,  as  citizens  of  the  state,  with  myself. 
.     .     .     Works,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  378,  379,  380. 

From  a  letter  to  W.  B.  S.,  New  York,  1840: 

I  have  not  time  to  pursue  this  subject  as  I  wish.  But 
I  desire  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that  while  I  dictate 
to  no  one,  and  shall  cheerfully  yield  my  place  to  others 
whose  principles  may  suit  the  whig  party  better,  I  dis- 
avow, and  altogether  reject  the  counsel  of  proscription 
of  immigrants.  This  right  hand  drops  off  before  I  do 
one  act  with" the  whig  or  any  other  party  in  opposition 
to  any  portion  of  my  fellow-citizens,  on  the  ground  of 
the  difference  of  their  nativity  or  of  their  religion.  No 
pretence  of  policy,  no  sense  of  injury,  shall  induce  me 
to  join,  aid  or  abet  such  miserable  efforts. — Works, 
Vol  III,  p.  388. 

To  the  Chautauqua  convention,  1846: 

We  have  reached  a  new  stage  in  our  national  career. 
It  is  that  of  territorial  aggrandizement.  Extended 
jurisdiction  is  an  element  of  national  strength,  if  the 
moral  condition  of  the  people  be  sound;  of  national 
weakness,  if  that  condition  be  unsound.      ...      I 


180  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

want  no  war.  I  want  no  enlargement  of  territory 
sooner  than  it  would  come  if  we  were  contented  with 
"a  masterly  inactivity."  I  abhor  war,  as  I  detest 
slavery.  I  would  not  give  one  human  life  for  all  the 
continent  that  remains  to  be  annexed.  But  I  cannot 
exclude  the  conviction,  that  the  popular  passion  for  ter- 
ritorial aggrandizement  is  irresistible.  Prudence,  jus- 
tice, cowardice,  may  check  it  for  a  season,  but  it 
will  gain  strength  by  its  subjugation.  .  .  .  Our 
population  is  destined  to  roll  its  resistless  waves  to  the 
icy  barriers  of  the  north,  and  to  encounter  oriental  civ- 
ilization on  the  shores  of  the  Pacific.  ...  It  be- 
hooves us  then,  to  qualify  ourselves  for  our  mission. 
We  must  dare  our  destiny.  We  can  do  this,  and  can 
only  do  it  by  early  measures  which  shall  effect  the  abo- 
lition of  slavery,  without  precipitancy,  without  oppres- 
sion, without  injustice  to  slaveholders,  without  civil 
war,  with  the  consent  of  mankind  and  the  approbation 
of  Heaven.     ...     —  Works,  Vol  III,  pp.  408,  409. 

From  Seward's  great  and  famous  speech  of 
March  11,  1850,  in  the  senate  of  the  United 
States: 

But  it  is  insisted  that  the  admission  of  California 
shall  be  attended  by  a  compromise  of  questions  which 
have  arisen  out  of  slavery! 

I  AM  OPPOSED  TO  ANY  SUCH  COMPROMISE,  IN  ANY 
AND  ALL  THE  FORMS  IN  WHICH  IT  HAS  BEEN  PRO- 
POSED; because,  while  admitting  the  purity  and  the 
patriotism  of  all  from  whom  it  is  my  misfortune  to  dif- 
fer, I  think  all  legislative  compromises,  which  are  not 
absolutely  necessary,  radically  wrong  and  essentially 
vicious.  They  involve  the  surrender  of  the  exercise  of 
judgment  and  conscience  on  distinct  and  separate 
questions,  .  .  .  We  deem  the  principle  of  the  law 
for  the  recapture  of  fugitives,  as  thus  expounded,  there- 
fore, unjust,  unconstitutional,  and  immoral;  and  thus, 
while  patriot  sm  withholds  its  approbation,  the  con- 
sciences of  our  people  condemn  it. 

You  will  say  that  these  convictions  of  ours  are  dis- 
loyal. Grant  it  for  the  sake  of  argu  ment.  They  are 
nevertheless,  honest;  and  the  law  is  to  be  executed^ 
among  us,  not  among  you;  not  by  us,  but  by  the  federal 


WILLIAM  H.    SEWARD.  181 

authority.  .  .  .  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  national 
domain  is  ours.  It  is  true  it  was  acquired  by  the  valor 
and  with  the  wealth  of  the  whole  nation.  But  we  hold, 
nevertheless,  no  arbitrary  power  over  it.  We  hold  no 
arbitrary  authority  over  anything,  whether  acquired 
lawfully  or  seized  by  usurpation.  The  Constitution 
regulates  our  stewardship;  the  Constitution  devotes  the 
domain  to  union,  to  justice,  to  defence,  to  welfare  and 
to  liberty. 

But  there  is  a  higher  law  than  the  Constitution, 
which  regulates  our  authority  over  the  domain  and  de- 
votes it  to  the  same  noble  purposes.  ...  1  feel  as« 
sured  that  slavery  must  give  way,  and  will  give  way, 
to  the  salutary  instructions  of  economy,  and  to  the 
ripening  influences  of  humanity;  that  emancipation  is 
inevitable  and  is  near;  that  it  may  be  hastened  or  hin- 
dered; and  that  whether  it  shall  be  peaceful  or  violent, 
depends  upon  the  question  whether  it  be  hastened  or 
hindered ;  that  all  measures  which  fortify  slavery  or  ex- 
tend it,  tend  to  the  consummation  of  violence;  all  that 
check  its  extension  and  abate  its  strength,  tend  to  its 
peaceful  extirpation.  .  .  .  —Works,  Vol.  I,  pp.  60, 
65,  74,  87. 

Words  of  "  welcome  to  Kossuth,"  in  the  sen- 
ate, December  12,  1851,  and  "  Freedom  in 
Europe,"  March  9,  1852: 

Again,  sir,  you  may  reject  Kossuth;  you  may,  if  you 
please,  propitiate  despotic  favor  by  trampling  the  ex- 
iles of  all  Europe  under  your  feet.  But  what  will  you 
have  gained?  This  republic  is,  and  forever  must  be, 
a  living  offence  to  Russia  and  to  Austria,  and  to  des- 
potic powers  everywhere.  You  will  never,  by  what- 
ever humiliations,  gain  one  friend  or  secure  one  ally 
in  Europe  or  America  that  wears  a  crown.  It  is  clear 
that  the  days  of  despotism  are  numbered.  We  do  not 
know  whether  its  end  is  to  come  this  year,  or  next 
year,  or  the  year  after;  in  this  quarter  of  a  century,  or 
in  this  half  of  a  century.  But  there  is  to  come  sooner 
or  later,  a  struggle  between  the  representative  and  the 
arbitrary  systems  of  government.  ...  It  has 
already  come  to  this— that  whenever  in  any  country 
an  advocate  of  freedom,  by  the  changes  of  fortune,  is 


1S2  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

driven  into  exile,  he  hastens  to  seek  an  asylum  here; 
that  whenever  a  hero  falls  in  the  cause  of  freedom  on 
any  of  her  battle-fields,  his  eyes  involuntarily  turn 
toward  us,  and  he  commits  that  cause  with  a  confiding 
trust  to  our  sympathy  and  our  care.  Never,  sir,  as  we 
value  the  security  of  our  own  freedom,  or  the  welfare 
and  happiness  of  mankind,  or  the  favor  of  heaven,  that 
has  enabled  us  to  protect  both,  let  that  exile  be  inhos- 
pitably repulsed.  Never  let  the  prayer  of  that  dying 
hero  fall  on  ears  unused  to  hear,  or  spend  itself  upon 
hearts  that  refuse  to  be  moved.  —  Works,  Vol.  I,  pp.  1S4, 
221. 

Speech  in  the  Senate,  January  26,  1853,  on 
"Coutinen'al  Rights  and  Relations:" 

While  I  do  not  desire  the  immediate  or  early  annexa- 
tion of  Cuba,  nor  see  how  I  could  vote  for  it  at  all 
until  slavery  shall  have  ceased  to  counteract  the  work- 
ings of  nature  in  that  beautiful  island,  nor  even  then, 
unless  it  could  come  into  the  Union  without  injustice 
to  Spain,  without  aggressive  war,  and  without  pro- 
ducing internal  dissensions  among  ourselves,  I  never- 
theless yield  up  my  full  assent  to  the  convictions  ex- 
pressed by  John  Quincy  Adams,  that  this  nation  can 
never  safely  allow  the  island  of  Cuba  to  pass  under  the 
dominion  of  any  power  that  is  already,  or  can  become 
a  formidable  rival  or  enemy.  .  .  .  And  I  shall  vote 
.  for  reaffirming  and  maintaining  the  principles  of  John 
Quincy  Adams,  as  defined  in  the  Monroe  doctrine,  and 
in  his  policy  in  regard  to  Cuba,  at  all  times,  and  under 
all  circumstances  whatsoever.  .  .  .  The  senator 
tells  us  that  the  question  of  the  acquisition  of  Cuba 
may  be  upon  us  to-morrow,  and  may  not  be  upon  us  for 
twenty-five  years.  That  is  to  say,  it  stands  now,  so  far 
as  we  can  see,  where  it  has  stood  for  twenty-five  years 
past.  But  he  advises  us  to  be  ready.  That  is  just 
what  I  propose  to  do.  And  the  way  to  keep  ready  is  to 
keep  cool.  —  Works,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  610,  61  J,  616. 

Oration,  September  14,  1853,  on  "The  Des- 
tiny of  America:" 

If  the  future  which  you  seek  consists  in  this:  that 
these  thirty-one  states  shall  continue  to  exist  for  a 
period  as  long  as  human  foresight  is  allowed  to  antici- 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD.  183 

pate  after  coming  events;  that  they  shall  be  all  the 
while  free;  that  they  shall  remain  distinct  and  inde- 
pendent in  domestic  economy,  and  nevertheless  be  only 
one  in  commerce  and  foreign  affairs;  that  there  shall 
arise  from  among  them  and  within  their  common  do- 
main even  more  than  thirty-one  other  equal  states 
alike  free,  independent,  and  united;  that  the  borders 
of  the  federal  republic,  so  peculiarly  constituted,  shall 
be  extended  so  that  it  shall  greet  the  sun  when  he 
touches  the  tropic,  and  when  he  sends  his  glancing  rays 
toward  the  polar  circle,  and  shall  include  even  distant 
islands  in  either  ocean;  that  our  population  now 
counted  by  tens  of  millions  shall  ultimately  be  reck- 
oned by  hundreds  of  millions;  that  our  wealth  shall  in- 
crease a  thousand  fold,  and  our  commercial  connec- 
tions shall  be  multiplied  and  our  political  influence  be 
enhanced  in  proportion  with  this  wide  development, 
and  that  mankind  shall  come  to  recognize  in  us  a  suc- 
cessor of  the  few  great  states  which  have  alternately 
borne  commanding  sway  in  the  world— if  this,  and 
only  this,  is  desired,  then  I  am  free  to  say  that  if,  as 
you  will  readily  promise,  our  public  and  private  vir- 
tues shall  be  preserved,  nothing  seems  to  me  more  cer- 
tain than  the  attainment  of  this  future,  so  surpass- 
ingly comprehensive  and  magnificent. 

Indeed,  such  a  future  seems  to  be  only  a  natural 
consequence  of  what  has  already  been  secured.  Why, 
then,  shall  it  not  be  attained?  Is  not  the  field  as  free 
for  the  expansion  indicated  as  it  was  for  that  which 
has  occurred?    .     .     . 

Certainly  no  one  expects  the  nations  of  Asia  to  be 
awakened  by  any  other  influences  than  our  own  from 
the  lethargy  into  which  they  sunk  nearly  three  thou- 
sand years  ago,  under  the  spells  of  superstition  and 
cagte.  If  they  could  be  roused  and  invigorated  now, 
would  they  spare  their  European  oppressors  and  smite 
their  American  benefactors?     .     .     . 

I  do  not  seek  to  disguise  from  myself,  nor  from  you, 
the  existence  of  a  growing  passion  for  territorial  ag- 
grandizement, which  often  exhibits  a  gross  disregard 
of  justice  and  humanity.  .  .  .  Works,  Vol.  IV,  pp. 
122,  125,  137. 


184  AMERICAN  HISTORY  STUDIES. 

On  "The  Advent  of  the  Republican  Party," 
October  12,  1855,  at  Albany,  N.  Y. : 

So  long  as  the  republican  party  shall  be  true  and 
faithful  to  the  constitution,  the  Union  and  the  rights 
of  men,  I  shall  serve  it  with  the  reservation  of  that  per- 
sonal independence  which  is  my  birthright,  but,  at  the 
same  time,  with  the  zeal  and  devotion  that  patriotism 
allows  and  enjoins.  I  do  not  know,  and  personally  I 
do  not  greatly  care,  that  it  shall  work  out  its  great 
ends  this  year,  or  the  next,  or  in  my  lifetime ;  because 
I  know  that  those  ends  are  ultimately  sure,  and  that 
time  and  trial  are  the  elements  which  make  all  great 
reformations  sure  and  lasting.  I  have  not  thus  far 
lived  for  personal  ends  or  temporary  fame,  and  1  shall 
not  begin  so  late  to  live  or  labor  for  them.  I  have  hoped 
that  I  might  leave  my  country  somewhat  worthier  of  a 
lofty  destiny,  and  the  rights  of  human  nature  somewhat 
safer.  A  reasonable  ambition  must  always  be  satisfied 
with  sincere  and  practical  endeavors.  If,  among  those 
who  shall  come  after  us,  there  shall  be  any  curious 
inquirer  who  shall  fall  upon  a  name  so  obscure  as 
mine,  he  shall  be  obliged  to  confess  that,  however  un- 
successfully I  labored  for  generous  ends,  yet  that  I 
nevertheless  was  ever  faithful,  ever  hopeful. — Works, 
Vol  IV,  p.  21+0. 

"The  Contest  and  the  Crisis,"  Buffalo,  Octo- 
ber 19,  1855: 

The  opposition  tell  us,  that  if  congress  could  prohibit 
slavery  in  territories,  then  they  might  establish  it 
there;  and  hence  they  argue  against  the  power  to  pro- 
hibit. No!  Congress  can  establish  slavery  nowhere. 
Slavery  was  never  established  rightfully  anywhere. 
Nor  was  it  ever  established  by  law.  It  is  in  violation 
of  every  line  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and 
of  the  whole  summary  of  personal  rights  contained  in 
the  Constitution.  It  is  derogatory  from  the  absolute 
rights  of  human  nature,  and  no  human  power  can  sub- 
vert those  rights.  .  .  .  The  apologists  of  slavery, 
thus  met,  change  front  suddenly,  and  ask  us  whether 
it  is  safe  to  brave  these  menaces  of  disunion.  I  answer 
— Yes,  yes!  .  .  .  Three  millions  of  slaves  are  a 
hostile  force  constantly  in  their  presence,  in  their  very 


WILLIAM  H.   SEWARD.  185 

midst.  The  servile  war  is  almost  the  most  fearful 
form  of  war.  The  world  without  sympathizes  with 
the  servile  enemy.  Against  that  war,  the  American 
Union  is  the  only  defense  of  the  slaveholders— their 
only  protection.  If  ever  they  shall,  in  a  season  of  mad- 
ness, secede  from  that  Union  and  provoke  that  war, 
they  will— soon  come  back  again. — Works,  Vol.  IV, 
pp.  U7,  248. 

"The  Irrepressible  Conflict"  speech,  Roch- 
ester, October  25,  1858: 

Russia  yet  maintains  slavery,  and  is  a  despotism. 

Most  of  the  other  European  states  have  abolished 
slavery,  and  adopted  the  system  of  free  labor.  .  .  . 
The  two  systems  are  at  once  perceived  to  be  incongru- 
ous. But  they  are  more  than  incongruous— they  are 
incompatible.  They  never  have  permanently  existed 
together  in  one  country,  and  they  never  can.     .     .     . 

Hitherto,  the  two  systems  have  existed  in  different 
itates,  but  side  by  side  within  the  American  Union. 
This  has  happened  because  the  Union  is  a  confederacy 
of  states.  But  in  another  aspect  the  United  States  con- 
stitute only  one  nation.  Increase  of  population,  which 
is  filling  the  states  out  to  their  very  borders,  together 
with  a  new  and  extended  net-work  of  railroads  and  other 
avenues,  and  an  internal  commerce  which  daily  becomes 
more  intimate,  is  rapidly  bringing  the  states  into  a 
higher  and  more  perfect  social  unity  or  consolidation. 
Thus,  these  antagonistic  systems  are  continually  com- 
ing into  closer  contact,  and  collision  results. 

Shall  I  tell  you  what  this  collision  means  ?  They 
who  think  that  it  is  accidental,  unnecessary,  the  work  of 
interested  or  fanatical  agitators,  and  therefore  ephem- 
eral, mistake  the  case  altogether.  It  is  an  irrepressi- 
ble conflict  between  opposing  and  enduring  forces  and 
it  means  that  the  United  States  must  and  will,  sooner 
or  later,  become  either  entirely  a  slaveholding  nation, 
or  entirely  a  free  labor  nation.  Either  the  cotton  and 
rice  fields  of  South  Carolina  and  the  sugar  plantations 
of  Louisiana  will  ultimately  be  tilled  by  free  labor, 
and  Charleston  and  New  Orleans  become  marts  for 
legitimate  merchandise  alone,  or  else  the  rye-fields  and 
wheat-fields  of  Massachusetts  and  New  York  must  again 


186  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

be  surrendered  by  their  farmers  to  slave  culture  and 
to  the  production  of  slaves,  and  Boston  and  New  York 
become  once  more  markets  for  trade  in  the  bodies  and 
souls  of  men.  It  is  the  failure  to  apprehend  this  great 
truth  that  induces  so  many  unsuccessful  attempts  at 
final  compromise  between  the  slave  and  free  states. 
and  it  is  the  existence  of  this  great  fact  that  renders 
all  such  pretended  compromises,  when  made,  vain 
and  ephemeral.     .     .     . 

.  .  .  Having  seen  the  society  around  me  univer- 
sally engaged  in  agriculture,  manufacture  and  trade, 
which  were  innocent  and  beneficent,  I  shall  never  be 
a  denizen  of  a  state  where  men  and  women  are  reared 
as  cattle,  and  bought  and  sold  as  merchandise.  When 
that  evil  day  shall  come,  and  all  further  effort  at 
resistance  shall  be  impossible,  then,  jf  there  shall  be  no 
better  hope  for  redemption  than  I  can  now  foresee,  I 
shall  say  with  Franklin,  while  looking  abroad  over  the 
whole  earth  for  a  new  and  more  congenial  home, 
"  Where  liberty  dwells,  there  is  my  country." 

You  will  tell  me  that  these  fears  are  extravagant 
and  chimerical.  I  answer,  they  are  so;  but  they  are 
so  only  because  the  designs  of  the  slaveholders  must 
and  can  be  defeated.  .  .  .  Works,  Vol.  IV,  pp. 
291,  292,  295. 

From   a   speech   at  Detroit,    September    4, 

1860: 

My  humble  advice,  then,  fellow  citizens,  is,  that  we 
return  and  reestablish  the  original  policy  of  the  na- 
tion, and  henceforth  hold,  as  we  did  in  the  beginning, 
that  slavery  is  and  must  be  only  a  purely  local,  tempo- 
rary and  exceptional  institution,  confined  within  the 
slave  states  where  it  already  exists^  while  freedom  is 
tLe  general,  normal,  enduring  and  permanent  condi- 
tion of  society  within  the  jurisdiction,  and  under  the 
authority  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.— 
Works,  Vol  IV,  p.  314. 

From  a  speech  at  St.  Paul,  September  18, 
1860: 

I  have  been  asked  by  many  of  you  what  I  think  of 
Minnesota.  I  will  not  enlarge  further  than  to  say, 
that  Minnesota  must  be  either  a  great  state  or  a  mean 


WILLIAM  H.   SEWARD.  187 

one,  just  as  her  people  shall  have  wisdom  and  virtue  to 
decide.  That  some  great  states  are  to  be  built  up  in 
the  Mississippi  Valley,  I  know.  You  will  not  longer 
hereafter  hear  of  the  ' '  Old  Dominion  "  state.  Dominion 
has  been  passing  away  from  Virginia  long  ago.  Penn- 
sylvania is  no  longer  the  "Keystone"  of  the  American 
Union,  for  the  arch  has  been  extended  from  the  At- 
lantic Coast  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  the  center  of  the 
arch  is  moved  westward  also;  a  new  keystone  is  to  be 
inserted  in  that  arch.  New  York  will  cease  to  be  tho 
"Empire  State,"  and  a  new  Empire  State  will  grow  up 
in  a  northern  latitude,  where  the  lands  are  rich,  and 
where  the  people  who  cultivate  them  are  all  free  and 
all  equal;  where  the  wealth  of  the  continent  is  made, 
not  where  it  is  exchanged.  That  state  which  shall  be 
truest  to  the  great  fundamental  principle  of  the  gov- 
ernment, the  principle  of  equality,  that  state  which 
shall  be  most  faithful,  most  vigorous  in  developing  and 
perfecting  society  on  this  principle,  will  be  at  once  the 
New  Dominion  State,  the  new  Keystone  State,  the  new 
Empire  State.     .     .     .     Works,  Vol.  IV,  p.  347. 

Extracts  from  his  speech  at  Chicago,  Oc- 
tober 3,  1860: 

When  slavery  became  identical  in  the  public  mind 
with  the  Union,  how  natural  it  was,  even  for  patriotic 
men,  to  approve  of,  or  to  at  least  excuse  and  tolerate 
slavery.  How  odious  did  it  become  for  men  to  be  free- 
soldiers,  and  to  be  regarded  as  abolitionists,  when  to 
be  an  abolitionist  was,  in  the  estimation  of  mankind, 
to  be  a  traitor  to  one's  country,  and  to  such  a  country 
as  this  is.  How  natural  was  it  then  to  believe  that 
slavery  after  all  might  not  be  so  very  bad,  and  to  be- 
lieve that  it  might  be  necessary  and  might  be  right  at 
some  times,  or  on  some  occasions,  which  times  and  oc- 
casions were  always  a  good  ways  off  from  themselves; 
especially  how  natural  was  it,  when  the  whole  Chris- 
tian church,  with  all  its  sects,  bent  itself  to  the  support 
of  the  Union,  mistaking  the  claim  of  slavery  for  the 
cause  of  the  Union     .     .     . 

People  of  Illinois!    People  of  the  great  westl    You 

are  all  youthful,  vigorous,  generous.     Your  states  are 

youthful,    vigorous,  and  virtuous.     The  destinies   of 

our  country,  the  hopes  of  mankind,  the  hopes  of  hu- 

13 


188  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

manity  rest  upon  you.  Ascend,  I  pray,  I  conjure  you, 
to  the  dignity  of  that  high  responsibility!  Thus  act- 
ing, you  will  have  peace  and  harmony  and  happiness 
in  your  future  years.  The  world,  looking  on,  will  ap- 
plaud you,  and  future  generations  in  all  ages  and  in 
all  regions  will  rise  up  and  call  you  blessed. — Works, 
Vol.  IV  pp.  357,  367. 

From  Seward's  second  speech  on  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  May  25,  1854,  and  other  later 
speeches  on  the  same  subject: 

All  the  immigrants,  under  this  bill  as  the  house  of 
representatives  overruling  you  have  ordered,  will  be 
good,  loyal,  liberty-loving,  slavery-fearing  citizens. 
Come  on,  then,  gentlemen  of  the  slave  states.  Since 
there  is  no  escaping  your  challenge,  I  accept  it  in  be- 
half of  the  cause  of  freedom.  We  will  engage  in  com- 
petition for  the  virgin  soil  of  Kansas,  and  God  give  the 
victory  to  the  side  which  is  stronger  in  numbers  as  it  is 
in  right.  ...  In  doing  this,  I  do  no  more  than 
those  who  believe  the  slave  power  is  rightest,  wisest, 
and  best,  are  doing,  and  will  continue  to  do,  with  my  free 
consent,  to  establish  its  complete  supremacy.  If  they 
shall  succeed,  I  still  shall  be,  as  I  have  been,  a  loj-al 
citizen.  If  we  succeed,  I  know  they  will  be  loyal  also, 
because  it  will  be  safest,  wisest,  and  best,  for  them  to 
be  so.  The  question  is  one,  not  of  a  day,  or  of  a  year, 
but  of  many  years,  and  for  aught  I  know,  many  gener- 
ations. Like  all  other  great  political  questions,  it  will 
be  attended  sometimes  by  excitement,  sometimes  by 
passion,  and  sometimes,  perhaps,  even  by  faction ;  but 
it  is  sure  to  be  settled  in  a  constitutional  way,  without 
any  violent  shock  to  society,  or  to  any  of  its  great 
interests.     ... 

My  position  concerning  legislative  compromises  is 
this,  namely:  personal,  partisan,  temporary  and  su- 
bordinate questions,  may  lawfully  be  compromised; 
but  principles  can  never  be  justly  or  wisely  made  the 
subjects  of  compromise.  By  principles  I  mean  the  ele- 
ments in  public  questions,  of  moral  rights,  political 
justice,  and  high  national  expediency.     .     .  There 

is  no  peace  in  this  world  for  compromisers ;  there  is  no 
peace  for  those  who  practice  evasion;  there  is  no  peace 


WILLIAM  H.   SEWARD.  1S9 

in  a  republican  land  for  any  statesmen  but  those  who  act 
directly,  and  boldly  abide  the  popular  judgment  when- 
ever it  may  be  fairly  and  clearly  and  fully  ascertained, 
without  attempting  to  falsify  the  issue  submitted,  or 
to  corrupt  the  tribunal.      .  —  Works,  Vol.  IV, 

pp.  471,  476-77,  517,  611-12. 

Taken  from  Seward's  Diary  and  Notes  on  the 
War: 

April  1,  1862. — Earl  Russell,  in  the  house  of  Lords, 
expressed  the  belief  that  this  country  is  large  enough 
for  two  independent  nations,  and  the  hope  that  this 
government  will  assent  to  a  peaceful  separation  from 
the  insurrectionary  States.  A  very  brief  sojourn  among 
ns,  with  an  observation  of  our  mountains,  rivers,  and 
coasts,  and  some  study  of  our  social  condition  and 
habits,  would  be  sufficient  to  satisfy  him,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  the  country  is  not  too  large  for  one  such 
people  as  this,  and  that  it  is,  and  must  always  be,  too 
mall  for  two  distinct  nations,  until  the  people  shall 
have  become  so  demoralized  by  faction  that  they  are 
ready  to  enter  the  course  which  leads  through  con- 
tinued subdivision  to  continued  anarchy.  All  the 
British  speculations  assume  that  the  political  elements 
which  have  been  brought  into  antagonism  here  are 
equal  in  vigor  and  endurance.  Nothing,  however,  is 
more  certain  than  that  freedom  and  slavery  are  very  un- 
equal in  these  qualities,  and  that  when  these  diverse 
elements  are  eliminated,  the  former  from  the  cause  of 
sedition,  and  the  latter  from  the  cause  of  the  govern- 
ment, then  the  government  must  prevail,  sustained  as 
it  is  by  the  co-operating  sentiments  of  loyalty,  of  na- 
tional pride,  interest,  ambition,  and  the  permanent 
love  of  peace. — Works,  Vol.  V,  p.  51. 

Extract  from  a  speech  to  his  neighbors, 
October  3,  1S68,  entitled  "The  Situation  and 
the  Duty:" 

No  one  state  in  the  Union,  nor  any  fraction  of  a 
state,  was,  by  any  action  or  word  of  mine,  driven  or 
allowed  to  separate  itself  from  the  Union.  On  the 
contrary,  every  act  or  word  that  I  could  lawfully  per- 
form or  speak  to  prevent  that  wild  treason  or  madnes3 


190  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

was  spoken  with  all  the  decision,  and  yet  with  all  the 
moderation,  that  such  counsels  required.  When  that 
frightful  rebellion  ceased,  no  one  state  of  the  Union, 
or  fraction  of  a  state,  was,  by  any  action  or  word  of 
mine,  repelled  from  returning  to  his  allegiance.  On 
the  contrary,  every  act  or  word  of  mine  that  was  use- 
ful, or  that  promised  to  be  useful,  in  bringing  those 
revolutionary  states  back  to  reinforce  and  reinvigorate 
the  Union  which  they  had  so  rashly  attempted  to  de- 
stroy, was  seasonably  performed  and  spoken.  —  Works, 
Vol  V,  p.  557. 

In  1861  Mr.  Seward  was  accused  of  lacking 

in  patriotism  on  account  of  a  speech  he  made 

in  the  senate.     He  wrote  the  following  letter 

concerning  the   charge.      The   letter   explains 

itself: 

Washington,  February  23,  1861. 

My  Dear  Sir:  The  American  people  in  our  day 
have  two  great  interests.  One,  the  ascendancy  of  free- 
dom over  slavery;  the  other,  the  integrity  of  the  Union! 
The  slavery  interest  has  derived  its  whole  political 
power  from  bringing  the  latter  object  into  antagonism 
with  the  former.  Twelve  years  ago  freedom  was  in 
danger  and  the  Union  was  not.  I  spoke  then  so  singly 
for  freedom  that  short-sighted  men  inferred  that  I  was 
disloyal  to  the  Union.  I  endured  the  reproach  with- 
out complaining,  and  now  I  have  my  vindication.  To- 
day, practically,  freedom  is  not  in  danger,  and  Union 
fe.  With  the  loss  of  Union,  all  would  be  lost.  With 
the  attempt  to  maintain  Union  by  civil  war  wantonly 
brought  on  there  would  be  danger  of  reaction  against 
the  administration  charged  with  the  preservation  of 
both  freedom  and  the  Union.  Now,  therefore,  I  speak 
singly  for  Union,  striving,  if  possible,  to  save  it  peace- 
ably; if  not  possible,  then  to  cast  the  responsibility 
upon  the  party  of  slavery.  For  this  singleness  of 
speech  I  am  now  suspected  of  infidelity  to  freedom. 
In  this  case,  as  in  the  other,  I  refer  myself  not  to  the 
men  of  any  time,  but  to  the  judgment  of  history.  I 
thank  you,  my  dear  Sir,  for  having  anticipated  what  I 
think  history  will  pronounce. 

But  do  not  publish  or  show  this  letter.     Leave  me  to 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWAKD.  191 

be  misunderstood.  I  am  not  impatient.  I  write  to 
to  you  only  because  I  would  not  be  nor  seem  to  be  im« 
grateful.     Faithfully  yonr  friend, 

William  H.  Seward. 
—  Works,  Vol  V,  pp.  613-6U. 

QUESTIONS 

(1)  What  change  in  the  manner  of  selecting  mayors 
of  cities  did  Seward  advocate?  (2)  What  reason  did 
he  give?  (3)  Was  he  right?  (4)  Was  Seward  a  demo- 
crat or  an  aristocrat?  (5)  Bring  together  as  many 
proofs  as  you  can  find  in  these  extracts  to  sustain  your 
position.  (0)  Was  he  a  hopeful  man?  (7)  Give  all 
the  proof s  you  can  find  for  your  opinion. 

(1)  How  did  Seward  regard  secret  societies?  (2) 
What  views  did  he  hold  regarding  the  national  bank  ? 
(3)  What  view  did  he  take  of  Jackson's  course  in  caus- 
ing the  removal  of  the  "Deposits"?  (4)  Was  he  a 
friend  of  change— of  progress?  (5)  All  the  proofs  you 
can  find.  (6)  What  different  tendency  did  he  find  in 
democratic  and  monarchic  governments?  (7)  Did  he 
believe  in  universal  suffrage?  (8)  Was  he  a  friend  to  a 
system  of  internal  improvements?  (9;  How  did  he 
view  the  state's  duty  towards  education?  (10)  Who 
especially  should  the  state  educate? 

(1)  What  view  did  Seward  take  in  regard  to  his  duty 
as  governor;  to  deliver  men  to  the  state  of  Virginia  who 
had  aided  negroes  in  escaping?  (2)  Was  he  right?  (3) 
Did  he  believe  the  people  of  the  North  were  inteirested 
in  southern  slavery?  (4)  Find  as  many  passages  to 
illustrate  as  you  can.  (5)  What  were  the  great  duties 
of  true  American  citizens?  (6)  What  constituted  the 
strength  of  slavery  in  his  mind?  (7;  Did  he  sympa- 
thize with  opposition  to  foreigners?  (8)  Was  he  favor- 
able to.  or  opposed  to,  the  Know-Nothings ?  (9)  How 
did  he  and  Douglas  agree  on  this  question?  (10)  Sum- 
marize his  arguments  on  this  question. 

(1 )  Was  he  favorable  to  territorial  expansion  ?  (2)  How 
did  he  look  on  the  Cuban  question?  (3)  Compare  his 
views  with  those  of  Douglas.  (4)  State  his  views  in  re- 
gard to  compromise.  (5)  Compare  his  views  with  the 
views  of  Webster.  (6)  What  two  celebrated  phrases 
can  you  find  in  these  extracts?  (7)  What  did  he  mean 
by  each  ?  (8 )  How  did  Lincoln  express  the  same  thought 
as  is  found  in  one  of  them?  (9)  Was  he  brave  in  ex- 
pressing opinions?  (10)  Was  he  a  radical  or  a  conser- 
vative? ~  Ul )  Why  was  he  so  friendly  to  Kossuth  ?  '12) 
Who  was  Kossuth  ? 

(1)  What  destiny  did  he  see  for  the  United  States? 
(2)  Under  what  conditions?  (3)  Outline  the  ideas  he 
set  forth  in  his  campaign  speeches  of  1860.  (4)  Did  he 
hejieye  tbe  nation  large  enough  to  make  two  of?    (^ 


102  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 


Why  his  answer?  (6)  Which  principle,  slavery  or  free- 
dom, did  he  hold  was  bound  tu  triumph?  (7)  Give  his 
arguments.  <«.  What  view  did  he  take  in  regard  to 
"reconstruction,"  judged  by  his  speech  of  1868?  (9) 
Object  of  his  so-called  compromise  speech  of  1800. 
U0;  Write  a  "life  "  of  Seward. 


SALMON  PORTLAND  CHASE 


Born  in  New  Hampshire,  1808.  Graduate  of 
Dartmouth.  Taught  in  Washington,  1826-1829. 
Settled  in  Cincinnati,  1830.  Senator,  1849-1855. 
Candidate  for  nomination  for  President,  1856, 

1860.  Governor  of  Ohio,  1855-1859.  Secretary 
of  the  treasury,  1861-1864.  Chief  Justice,  1864- 
1873.  Suggested  for  President,  1868,  1872. 
Leader  of  the  anti-slavery  party  in  Ohio,  1842- 

1861.  Died,  1873. 


CHAPTER  IX 

SALMON  PORTLAND  CHASE 

CHASE  had  been  considered  the  chief  rival 
of  Seward  for  leadership  in  the  new  Re- 
publican party  to  the  time  of  Lincoln's 
nomination  for  president  in  1860.  He  was  a 
man  of  large  mould  both  in  mind  and  body.  Of 
New  England  ancestry  he  e^rly  came  to  Ohio, 
and  became  identified  with  the  West.  His  ed- 
ucation was  broad  and  general  rather  than  deep. 
In  some  respects  it  was  perhaps  superficial,  if  we 
may  judge  from  his  own  statements  in  regard 
to  his  college  course,  and  his  previous  prepara- 
tion. In  the  main  his  preparation  was  received 
from  private  instructors.  His  college  course 
was  taken  partly  at  Cincinnati,  and  finished 
at  Dartmouth.  After  his  graduation,  at  the 
age  of  twenty,  he  went  to  Washington  and  be- 
came a  tutor  in  private  families,  and  especially 
in  that  of  Mr.  Wirt.  He  pursued  his  law  stud- 
ies at  the  same  time,  and  after  admission  to 
the  bar  he  returned  to  Ohio,  and  located  at 
Cincinnati,  where  he  soon  became  one  of  its 
recognized  leaders. 

Chase  was  not  a  party  man  in  the  usual 
sense  of  the  term;  at  least  he  was  always  very 
independent,  and  either  voted  independently, 
or  changed  his  party  ties  frequently.  He  began 
life  as  a  Whig;  later  he  became  an  Independ- 
ent Democrat;    a  Liberty  party  man;    a.  Free- 


SALMON  P.  CHASE.  195 

Soiler;  a  Republican;  and  ended  his  life  as  a 
Democrat,  if  he  could  be  said  to  have  any  party 
ties  after  he  became  Chief  Justice. 

He  was  accused  of  inordinate  ambition  to  be- 
come president.  That  he  would  have  accepted 
the  place  is  undoubted;  however,  if  his  private 
letters  are  to  be  the  standard  from  which  we 
may  judge  his  aspirations,  the  charge  is  not 
sustained. 

Chase  was  a  man  of  deep  convictions,  pro- 
found views,  and  solid  judgment  rather  than  of 
brilliant  parts.  He  was  not  as  quick  as  Doug- 
las; not  as  keen  a  politician  as  Seward;  and  had 
not  the  self-restraint  and  self-command  of 
Lincoln. 

The  following  quotations  are  made  in  the 
hope  that  the  student  may  work  out  from  them 
something  of  an  independent  judgment  in  regard 
to  the  character  and  work  of  one  of  our  great 
statesmen. 

The  following  brief  extracts  give  us  some- 
thing of  an  insight  into  the  early  life  of  Chase, 
and  the  forces  which  were  tending  to  form  his 
character. 

One  day  I  and  two  or  three  more  were  rolling  nine 
pins.  There  was  an  alley  on  our  premises.  My  father 
came  and  said:  'Salmon,  come  and  go  with  me  to  the 
field.'  I  lingered,  hating  to  leave  the  game.  'Won't 
you  come  and  help  your  father?'  Only  a  look  with 
that.  All  my  reluctance  vanished,  and  I  went  with  a 
right  good  will.  He  ruled  by  kind  words  and  kind 
looks.    .     .     . 

For  several  months— at  least  weeks— before  going,  I 
knew  that  my  uncle  had  proposed  to  take  me  and  that 
I  was  to  go  to  him  in  Ohio.  I  tried  to  find  out  where  I 
was  going  and  got  some  queer  information,  "The 
Ohio,"  as  the  country  was  then  called,  was  a  great  way 
oftWt  was  very  fertile.— cucumbers  grew  on  trees— 


190  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES, 

there  were  wonderful  springs  whose  waters  were  like 
New  England  rum— deer  and  wolves  were  plenty— peo- 
ple few.  A  copy  of  Morse's  Gazetteer  gave  me  some- 
what better  but  still  scanty  information.     .     .     . 

I  entered  college  at  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  as  a  freshman, 
but  soon  conceived  the  idea,  that,  by  extra  study,  I 
could  be  advanced  to  the  next  higher  class,  and,  having 
obtained  the  consent  of  Mr.  Sparrow,  then  in  college 
as  Junior  or  Senior,  to  hear  my  lessons,  began  to  read 
up  with  that  view.  It  was  not  very  difficult  to  accom- 
plish the  object;  for  the  requirements  of  scholarship 
were  by  no  means  exacting.  In  a  short  time,  I  offered 
myself  to  be  examined  for  advanced  standing,  and  was 
advanced  to  be  sophomore.     .     .     . 

"  Salmon  "  said  he,  "I  once  obtained  an  office  for  a 
nephew  of  mine,  and  he  was  ruined  by  it.  I  then  de- 
termined never  to  ask  one  for  another.  I  will  give  you 
fifty  cents  to  buy  a  spade  with,  but  I  will  not  help  to 
get  you  a  clerkship.     .     .     . 

Mr.  Clay  gave  a  party  this  evening,  and  I  attended, 
as  I  had  neglected  several  previous  evenings.  When  I 
arrived  I  found  that  the  company  had  not  yet  assembled, 
and,  after  paying  my  respects  to  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Clay,  I 
took  my  station  near  the  door  to  observe  the  various 
manners  of  the  entering  visitants.  I  soon  tired  of  this 
employment  and  went  into  the  next  room  and  looked 
at  the  clock  and  the  company  alternately  until  half  an 
hour  had  elapsed,  when  I  took  my  leave,  glad  to  escape 
from  the  scene  of  ceremonious  frivolity.     .     .     . 

Dec.  14,  1830.  Attended  the  Court,  and,  with  sev- 
eral others,  was  examined  for  admission  to  the  bar. 
One  was  rejected,  two  were  deferred;  three,  of  whom 
I  was  one,  were  admitted.  So  I  am  now  an  attorney-at- 
law.     I  have  a  profession.     Let  me  not  dishonor  it.  .  . 

After  breakfast,  we  went  to  the  hotel,  where  I  ob- 
tained a  room  much  larger  than  I  needed,  indeed,  for  I 
am  but  six  feet  \>y  one  or  two,  and  the  chamber  was  at 
least  ten  by  six  ^At  Cincinnati,  his  future  kt«ne]. — 
Cited  in  Warden's  Life  of  Chase,  pp.  25,  65,  93,  121, 
153,  175,  187. 

In  1845  he  writes  the  following  in  his  diary: 
Have  not  attended  church  to-day,  chiefly  because  of  in- 
convenience of  getting  to  town,  having  no  place  there 


SALMON  P.   CHASE.  197 

for  my  horses;  but  partly,  also,  because  I  feel  doubtful 
as  to  my  duty  arising  from  the  relation  of  the  church  to 
slavery.  On  one  side,  I  cannot  doubt  that  it  is  wrong  for 
the  church  to  maintain  an  indifferent  if  not  an  hostile  at- 
titude to  the  cause  of  the  enslaved;  on  the  other,  I  feel 
quite  sure  that  other  members  of  the  church,  who  do  not 
feel  as  I  do  in  reference  to  the  slaves,  are  far  more  zealous 
in  other  good  works,  and  live  much  nearer  to  Christ.  I 
am  anxious  to  see  the  path  of  duty  in  reference  to  the  sub- 
ject of  church  connection  more  clearly  than  I  do. — 
Warden,  p.  — 

In  1S41,  when  a  member  of  the  city  council, 
he  took  a  stand  which  he  records  in  the  follow- 
ing words  in  his  diary: 

On  Wednesday  evening,  at  the  Council,  I  openly  de- 
clared my  resolution  to  vote  for  no  more  licenses  to  sell 
intoxicating  drinks,  whether  to  taverns  or  other  houses, 
and  I  took  some  pains  to  prevent  the  grant  of  a  license 
to  a  new  house  proposed  to  be  established  on  Main 
Street,  in  which  I  succeeded.  I  don't  know  what  the 
effect  may  be  on  me  personally,  but  I  believe  that  I 
have  done  right.     .     .     . 

The  following  extracts  are  made  from  three 
political  addresses  prepared  by  Chase  during 
the  years  1843,  1811,  and  1815: 

I  have  only  to  say,  I  never  proposed  the  resolution ;  I 
never  would  propose  or  vote  for  such  a  resolution.  I 
hold  no  doctrine  of  mental  reservation .  Every  man, 
in  my  judgment,  should  say  precisely  what  he  means- 
keeping  nothing  back,  here  or  elsewhere.     .     .     . 

What,  then,  is  the  position  of  the  political  parties  of 
the  country  in  relation  to  this  subject?  One  of  these 
parties  professes  to  be  guided  by  the  most  liberal  prin- 
ciples. "  Equal  and  exact  justice  to  all  men;"  "  equal 
rights  for  all  men;"  "inflexible  opposition  to  oppres- 
sion," are  its  favorite  mottoes.  It  claims  to  be  the  true 
friend  of  popular  government,  and  assumes  the  name 
of  Democratic.     .     .    . 

They  declaim  loudly  against  all  monopolies,  all  spe- 
cial privileges,  all  encroachments  on  personal  rights, 
all  distinctions  founded  upon  birth;  and  compensate 


198  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

themselves  for  these  efforts  of  virtue,  by  practicing 
the  vilest  oppression  upon  all  their  countrymen,  in 
whose  complexion  the  slightest  trace  of  African 
derivation  can  be  detected.     .     .     . 

There  is  another  party  which  boasts  that  it  is  con- 
servative in  its  character.  Its  watchwords  are,  "a 
tariff,"  "a  banking  system,"  "the  Union  as  it  is." 
Among  its  members,  also,  are  many  sincere  opponents 
of  slavery.  .  .  .  Like  the  Democratic  party,  how- 
ever, the  Whig  party  maintains  alliances  with  the 
slaveholder.  It  proposes,  in  its  national  conventions, 
no  action  against  slavery.  It  has  no  anti-slavery  arti- 
cle in  its  national  creed.     .     .     . 

No  question  half  so  important  as  that  of  slavery  en- 
gages the  attention  of  the  American  people.  All 
others,  in  fact,  dwindle  into  insignificance  in  com- 
parison with  it.  The  question  of  slavery  is,  and  until 
t  shall  be  settled,  must  be,  the  paramount  moral  and 
political  question  of  the  day.  We,  at  least,  so  regard 
it,  and,  so  regarding  it,  must  subordinate  every  other 
question  to  it. 

It  follows,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that  we  can 
not  yield  our  political  support  to  any  party  which  does 
not  take  our  ground  upon  the  question.  —  Warden,  pp. 
300,  804,  305,  308. 

August  6,.  1849,  he  wrote  to  Lyman  W.  Hall 
as  follows: 

I  am  sure  I  had  no  idea  that  I  was  so  bad  a  man  as  I 
have  discovered  myself  to  be  since  my  election  to  the 
Senate.  I  always  tried  to  pursue  a  straight-forward, 
frank  course,  conciliating  always  wheresoever  concili- 
ation did  not  involve  a  sacrifice  of  principle;  but  al- 
ways ready  to  avow  and  maintain  whatever  principles 
I  really  held  and  to  abide  by  them  no  matter  how 
small  the  minority. 

I  was  educated  in  the  Whig  school,  and  as  a  lawyer 
rather  than  as  a  politician.  In  my  latter  capacity  I  was 
always  tolerably  independent;  but  I  held  in  the  main  the 
views  which  are  now  generally  denominated  Whig  {though 
at  the  time,  they  were  almost  equally  shared  by  both  par- 
ties) up  till  1840.  In  that  year  I  supported  Harrison, 
though  an  advocate  myself  of  the  mk-treawry  system?    .  , 


SALMON  P.   CHASE. 


199 


.  Convinced  note  that  the  question  of  slavery  was  the 
paramount  one,  and  satisfied  that  the  great  principle  of 
equal  rights  was  correct,  I  began  to  test  opinions  by  this 
standard.  Iioasthusled  to  quite  different  views  on  the 
questions  of  bank,  tariff  and  (government,  from  those  I 
hadtakenup,  in  trust  without  examination,  and  became 
unreservedly  a  Democrat- with  Democratic  principles  too 
strong  to  allow  of  any  compromise  with  slavery.  Hold- 
ing these  principles,  1  was  content  to  go  into  the  minority 
of  the  liberty  party  and  labor  in  it,  when  men  counted  me 
mad  for  so  doing. 

These  principles,  however,  led  the  Democrats  to  consent 
to  my  support  last  winter,  and  I  now  hold  them  as  unre- 
servedly, and  as  absolutely,  without  compromise,  as  ever. 
All  I  desire  is  to  see  the  old  Democracy  follow  out  tin  ir 
principles  to  the  same  conclusions.  Then  ice  can  all 
stand  together.  — Warden,  p.  831. 

August  7,  184:9,  he  wrote: 

For  myself,  I  have  no  love  for  political  life;  I  am  in  it 
from  necessity,  not  choice  or  advantage.  Cheerfully 
woxdd  I  resign  my  position  to  any  man  who  would  do  my 
work  in  it.  I  am  not  insensible  to  its  honors  or  advan- 
tages, but  in  my  judgment,  they  are  more  than  counter- 
balanced by  its  responsibilities  and.  its  discomforts.  But 
I  won't  bore  you  with  this,  but,  finding  myself  at  the 
bottom  of  the  second  page,  bid  you  farewell.— Warden, 
p.  334- 

Letter  to  Lincoln  after  his  nomination  in  1860: 

My  Dear  Sir:— I  congratulate  you,  most  heartily,  on 
your  nomination;  and  shall  support  you,  in  1860,  as 
cordially  and  earnestly  as  I  did  in  1858. 

The  excellent  platform  adopted,  and  the  selection  of 
that  true  and  able  man,  Hannibal  Hamlin,  as  your  as- 
sociate on  the  ticket,  completes  my  satisfaction  with 
the  results  of  the  convention.  They  will  prove,  I  am 
confident,  as  auspicious  to  the  country  as  tliey  are  hon- 
orable to  the  nominees. 

Mr.  Seward  has  much  reason  to  be  gratified  by  the 
large  and  cordial  support  which  he  received,  and  espe- 
cially by  the  generous,  unanimous,  and  constant  ad- 
hesion, without  regard  to  personal  preferences,  of  the 


200  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

entire  delegation  from  his  own  great  state.  Doubtless, 
the  similar  adhesion  of  the  Illinois  delegation  affords  a 
higher  gratification  to  you  than  the  nomination  itself. 
The  only  regret  I  feel  connected  with  the  convention 
is  excited  by  the  failure  of  the  delegation  from  Ohio  to 
evince  the  same  generous  spirit.  In  this  regret  I  am 
quite  sure  you  must  participate;  for  I  err  greatly  in  my 
estimate  of  your  magnanimity  if  you  do  not  condemn, 
as  I  do,  the  conduct  of  delegates  from  whatever  state, 
who  disregard,  while  acting  as  such,  the  clearly  ex- 
pressed preferences  of  their  own  state  convention. — 
Warden,  p.  363. 

Chase  writes  to  Trowbridge  concerning  his 
relations  to  Lincoln,  and  to  the  conference  of 
states  in  1861,  in  these  words: 

After  his  election,  he  invited  me  to  Springfield  to 
confer  with  me  as  to  the  selection  of  his  Cabinet.  He 
said  that  he  had  felt  bound  to  offer  the  position  of  Sec- 
retary of  State  to  Mr.  Seward  as  the  generally  recog 
nized  leader  of  the  Republican  party,  intending,  if  h% 
should  decline  it,  to  offer  it  to  me.  He  did  not  wish 
that  Mr.  Seward  should  decline  it  and  was  glad  that  he 
had  accepted,  and  now  desired  to  have  me  take  the 
place  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  ...  I  replied 
that  I  did  not  wish  and  was  not  prepared  to  say  that  I 
would  accept  that  place  if  offered.  ...  In  Febru 
ary,  Virginia  invited  a  conference  of  the  States  at 
Washington,  and  appointed  commissioners  on  her  part. 
This  conference,  doubtless,  was  intended  as  a  means  of 
extorting  new  concessions  to  the  slave  interest  from 
Congress.  To  prevent  injurious  results,  it  seemed  nec- 
essary that  there  should  be  a  general  representation 
from  all  the  states—  from  free  as  well  as  from  the  slave 
states  which  had  become  involved  in  secession.  I  was 
one  of  the  commissioners  selected  by  the  governor  to 
represent  Ohio.  Unfortunately  I  was  the  only  one  who 
was  prepared  Co  resist  the  purchase  of  peace  by  undue 
concessions.  I  was  quite  willing  to  give  to  the  slavr^ 
states  the  strongest  assurances  that  no  aggressions  upon 
their  rights  or  real  interests  were  meditated,  but  I  was 
not  at  all  willing  to  disguise  from  them  the  fact  that 
the  further  extension  of  slavery  could  not  be  allowed.  — 
Warden,  pp.  364,  365. 


SALMON  P.    CHASE.  201 

To  his  sister,  Mr?.  Hunt,  living  at  New 
Orleans,  Chase  writes,  November  30,  1860: 

I  abhor  the  very  idea  of  a  dissolution  of  the  Union.     If 

I  were  President  I  would,  indeed,  exhaust  every  expedient 
of  forbearance,  consistent  trill,  safi  ty.  But,  at  all  hazards, 
and  against  all  opposition,  the  laics  of  the  Union  should 
be  enforced,  through  the  judiciary  whenever  practicable, 
but  against  rebellion  by  all  necessary  means.  The  ques- 
tion of  slavery  should  not  be  permitted  to  influence  my  ac- 
tion, one  way  or  the  other. 

But,  while  I  would  thus  act  when  circumstances 
should  demand  action,  I  would  not  shut  my  eyes  to  the 
fact,  manifest  to  everybody,  that  it  is  from  the  slavery 
question  that  our  chief  dangers  arise,  and  I  should  di- 
rect whatever  influence  I  might  possess  to  an  adjust- 
ment of  it,  not  by  any  new  compromise -for  new  com- 
promises only  breed  new  dangers— but  honest  provision 
for  the  honest  fulfillment  of  all  constitutional  obliga- 
tions connected  with  it.  Nothing  seems  to  me  clearer 
than  that,  under  the  constitution  [Slavery  is  a]  State 
institution,  and  that  much  embarrassment  would  have 
been  avoided  had  this  principle  never  been  lost  [sight 
of  J.  It  would  have  assured  peace  to  the  states  in  which 
slavery  exists,  by  uniting  nearly  all  men  of  all  opinions 
against  any  aggression  upon  them.  Let  this  principle 
be  now  once  more  fully  recognized  and  it  will  redress 
much  of  our  trouble.  The  slave  states  can  lose  noth- 
ing, for  few  of  their  statesmen  expect  any  farther  ex- 
tension of  slavery.  Disunion  certainly  is  not  extension. 
Disunion  rather  is  abolition,  and  abolition  through 
civil  and  servile  war— which  God  forbid!  It  is  pre- 
cisely because  they  anticipate  abolition  as  the  result 
that  the  Garrison  abolitionists  desired  disunion.    .    .    . 

Besides  this  question  of  extension  there  seems  to  be 
but  one  other  which  need  occasion  any  anxiety.  I  re- 
fer of  course  to  the  extradition  of  escaping  slaves.  I 
have  no  doubt  that  the  Constitution  stipulates  for  such 
extradition;  but  I  can  not  help  seeing  the  natural 
sentiment  and  conscientious  convictions  make  the  exe- 
cution of  this  stipulation  everywhere  difficult  and,  in 
the  free  States,  well  nigh  impracticable;  and  I  would 
not  delude,  or  attempt  to  delude,  anybody  with  the 


202  AMERICAN    HISTORY   STUDIES, 

notion  of  its  execution  under  what  some  people  call  a 
"fair  law,"  for  all  such  propositions  mean  evasion, 
and  I  would  evade  nothing.  It  is  high  time  to  have 
done  with  evasions.  Let  us  recognize  facts  as  they  are, 
frankly  and  boldly,  and  not  try  to  creep  away  f i-orn 
them.  In  this  spirit  I  would  recognize  the  fact  of  the 
constitutional  obligation  and  the  fact  that  it  cannot  b® 
fulfilled  with  any  thing  like  completeness;  and  then  I 
would  see  what  could  be  done  instead  of  literal  fulfill- 
ment. It  seems  to  me  that  compensation  and  provision 
for  sending  the  fugitives  out  of  the  country  would  be 
better  than  any  thing  else  that  is  practicable.  It 
would  be  better  for  the  Slave  states,  because  the  return 
of  the  fugitives  is  not  in  itself  a  desirable  thing  either 
from  the  individual  from  whom  or  the  State  from 
which  he  flies.  It  would  be  better  for  the  free  States, 
because  it  would  involve  nothing  repugnant  to  the  sent- 
iments and  convictions  of  the  people.  It  would  be  bet- 
ter, infinitely  better,  for  all  than  disunion.  With 
these  questions  thus  adjusted,  peace  would  return,  and 
harmony,  and  prosperity.  Is  there  any  better  way?  I 
see  none.  It  is  useless  to  attempt  impossibilities.— 
Warden,  pp.  366,  367. 

A  letter  to  General  Scott,  December  29, 
1860: 

.  .  .  Imbecility,  or  treason,  or  both,  mark  all  the 
action  of  the  existing  administration.  Yesterday, 
while  the  armed  bands  of  a  State  in  open  hostility 
against  the  National  Government,  were  sizing  Federal 
forts  at  Charleston,  the  so-called  President  and  his 
Cabinet  were  in  shameful  conference  with  the  commis- 
sioners of  rebellion.  And  rebellion  is  treason  until 
successful— which  God  forbid !  for  successful  rebellion 
must  needs  be  followed,  and  followed  with  swift  steps, 
by  civil  and  servile  war.     .    ,     . 

Take,  then,  the  responsibility.  In  virtue  of  a  com- 
mission which  no  other  American,  save  Washington, 
ever  held,  j7ou  command  the  army  of  the  United 
States.     Preserve  the  Union  which  he  established.     . 

In  a  few  weeks,  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  obedience  to  the  will 
of  the  country,  will  organize  a  new  administration  of 
the  General  Government,  faithful  to  every  constitu- 


SALMON  P.  CHASE.  9Q3 

tional  obligation  and  just  to  every  State.  Then,  we 
may  hope,  disunion  will  hide  its  hateful  head.  .  '  .— 
Warden,  pp.  367,  368. 

A  letter  to  A.  Taft,  April  28,  1861: 
As  a  positive  policy,  two  alternatives  were  plainly 
before  us.  (1)  That  of  enforcing  the  laws  by  its  whole 
power  and  through  its  whole  extent;  or  (2)  that  of  rec 
ognizing  the  organization  of  actual  government  by  the 
seven  seceded  States  as  an  accomplished  revolution- 
accomplished  through  the  complicity  of  the  late  ad- 
ministration, and  letting  that  Confederacy  try  its  ex- 
periment of  separation;  but  maintaining  the  authority 
of  the  Union  and  treating  secession  as  treason  every- 
where else. 

Knowing  that  the  former  of  these  alternatives  in- 
volved destructive  war,  and  vast  expenditure,  and  op- 
pressive debt,  and  thinking  it  possible,  that  through 
the  latter  these  great  evils  might  be  avoided,  the  Union 
of  the  other  States  preserved  unbroken,  the  return 
even  of  the  seceded  States,  after  an  unsatisfactory  ex- 
periment of  separation,  secured,  and  the  great  cause  of 
freedom  and  constitutional  government  peacefully  vin- 
dicated—thinking, I  say,  these  things  possible,  I  pre- 
ferred the  latter  alternative. 

The  attack  on  Fort  Sumter,  however,  and  the  precip- 
itation of  Virginia  into  hostility  to  the  National  Gov- 
ernment, made  this  latter  alternative  impracticable, 
and  I  had  then  no  hesitation  about  recurring  to  the 
former.—  Warden,  p.  371. 

The  following  extracts  are  taken  from  the 
Appeal  of  the  Independent  Democrats,  of 
January  23,  1854: 

_  We  arraign  this  bill  [Kansas-Nebraska]  as  a  gross 
violation  of  a  sacred  pledge;  as  a  criminal  betrayal  of 
precious  rights;  as  part  and  parcel  of  an  atrocious  plot 
to  exclude  from  a  vast  unoccupied  region  immigrants 
from  the  Old  World  and  free  laborers  from  our  own 
states,  and  convert  it  into  a  dreary  region  of  despotism, 
inhabited  by  masters  and  slaves. 

Take  your  maps,  fellow-citizens,  we  entreat  you,  and 
see  what  country  it  is  which  this  bill  gratuitously  and 
recklessly  proposes  to  open  to  slavery.     . 

14 


£04  AMERICAN  HISTORY  STUDIES, 

This  immense  region,  occupying  the  very  heart  of  the 
North  American  Continent,  and  larger,  by  thirty-three 
thousand  square  miles,  than  all  the  existing  free  states 
—  including  California;  this  immense  region,  well 
watered  and  fertile,  .  .  .  and  now  for  more  tlr>i 
thirty  years  regarded  by  the  common  consent  of  the 
American  people  as  consecrated  to  freedom  by  statute 
and  by  compact— this  immense  region  the  bill  now  be- 
fore the  Senate,  without  reason  and  without  excuse, 
but  in  flagrant  disregard  of  sound  policy  and  sacred 
faith,  purposes  to  open  to  slavery.     .     .     . 

We  confess  our  total  inability  properly  to  delineate 
the  character  or  describe  the  consequences  of  this 
measure.  Language  fails  to  express  sentiments  of  in- 
dignation and  abhorrence  which  it  inspires:  and  no 
vision  less  penetrating  and  comprehensive  than  that  of 
the  All-Seeing  can  reach  its  evil  issues. 

We  appeal  to  the  people.  We  warn  you  that  the 
dearest  interests  of  freedom  and  the  Union  are  in  im- 
minent peril.  Demagogues  may  tell  you  that  the 
Union  can  be  maintained  only  by  submitting  to  the 
demands  of  slavery.  We  tell  you  that  the  Union  can 
only  be  maintained  by  the  full  recognition  of  the  just 
claims  of  freedom  and  man.  The  Union  was  formed 
to  establish  justice  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty- 
When  it  fails  to  accomplish  these  ends  it  will  be  worth- 
less, and  when  it  becomes  worthless  it  cannot  long 
endure. 

We  entreat  you  to  be  mindful  of  that  fundamental 
maxim  of  Democracy— Equal  Rights  and  Exact  Justice 
for  all  Men.  Do  not  submit  to  become  agents  in  ex- 
tending legalized  oppression  and  systematized  injus- 
tice over  a  vast  territory  yet  exempt  from  these  terri- 
ble evils. 

Whatever  apologies  may  be  offered  for  the  toleration 
of  slavery  in  the  States,  none  can  be  offered  for  its  ex- 
tension into  Territories  where  it  does  not  exist.     .     .     . 

For  ourselves,  we  shall  resist  it  by  speech  and  vote. 
and  with  all  the  abilities  which  God  has  given  us. 
Even  if  overcome  in  the  impending  struggle,  we  shall 
not  submit.  We  shall  go  home  to  our  constituents, 
erect  anew  the  standard  of  freedom,  and  call  on  the 
people  to  come  to  the  rescue  of  the  country  from  the 
domination  of  slavery.     We  will  not  despair;  for  the 


SALMON  P.   CHASE.  20") 

cause  of  human  freedom  is  the  cause  of  God. — Schucker's 
Life  of  Chase,  pp.  141,  142,  146,  147. 

Chase  to  Seward,  January  11,  1861: 

My  dear  Sir:  You  are  to  be  Secretary  of  State.  The 
post  is  yours  by  right  and  you, will  have  the  post.  My 
best  wishes  go  with  you.  Permit  me  a  few  words  about 
matters  in  which  we  have  a  deep  common  interest. 

The  telegraph  reports  that  you  are  to  speak  on  Satur- 
day. Let  me  urge  j  to  to  give  countenance  to  no  scheme 
of  compromise.  Mr.  Lincoln  will  be  inaugurated  in  a 
few  days.  Then  the  Republicans  will  be  charged  with 
the  responsibility  of  administration.  Then,  too,  they 
will  control  one  branch  of  the  Government. 

To  me  it  seems  all-important  that  no  compromise  be 
now  made,  and  no  concession  involving  any  surrender 
of  principles;  but  that  the  people  of  the  Slave  States, 
and  of  all  the  states,  be  plainly  told  that  the  Republi- 
cans have  no  proposition  to  make  at  present;  that  when 
they  have  the  power  they  will  be  ready  to  offer  an  ad- 
justment, fair  and  beneficial  to  all  sections  of  the 
country.     .     .     .     Schucker's,  p.  202. 

In  a  communication  to  the  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means,  we  find  this  language: 

The  provision  making  the  United  States  notes  a  legal 
tender  has  doubtless  been  well  considered  by  the  com- 
mittee, and  their  conclusion  needs  no  support  from  any 
observation  of  mine.  I  think  it  my  duty  to  say,  how- 
ever, that  in  respect  to  this  provision  my  reflections 
have  conducted  me  to  the  same  conclusions  they  have 
reached.  It  is  not  unknown  to  them  that  I  have  felt, 
nor  do  I  wish  to  conceal  that  I  now  feel,  a  great  aver- 
sion to  making  anything  but  coin  a  legal  tender  in  pay- 
ment of  debts.  It  has  been  my  anxious  wish  to  avoid 
the  necessity  of  such  legislation.  It  is  at  present,  im- 
possible, however,  in  consequence  of  the  large  expendi- 
tures entailed  by  the  war  and  the  suspension  of  the 
banks,  to  procure  sufficient  coin  for  current  disburse- 
ments; and  it  has  therefore  become  indispensably  nec- 
essary that  we  should  resort  to  the  issue  of  United 
States  notes.  The  making  them  a  legal  tender  might 
still  be  avoided  if  the  willingness  manifested  by  the 
people   generally,    by   railroad    companies    and    by   many 


206  AMERICAN    HISTORY   STUDIES. 

of  the  banking  institutions,  to  receive  and  pay  them  as 
money  in  all  transactions  were  absolutely  or  practically 
universal.     .     .     .     Schiickcr's,  p.  244- 

From  Hepburn  vs.  Griswold,  1868. 

IV.  There  is  in  the  Constitution  no  express  grant  of 
legislative  power  to  make  any  description  of  credit  cur- 
rency a  legal  tender  in  payment  of  debts.  VII.  The 
making  of  notes  or  bills  of  credit  a  legal  tender  in  pay- 
ment of  pre-existing  debts  is  not  a  means  appropriate, 
plainly  adapted,  or  really  calculated  to  carry  into  effect 
any  express  power  vested  in  Congress;  is  inconsistent 
with  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution;  and  is  prohibited 
by  the  Constitution. — Schucker's,  p.  260. 

A  letter  to  John  Roberts,  May  21,  1861: 
In  making  appointments,  my  rule  always  has  been  to 
give  the  preference  to  political  friends,  except  in  cases 
where  peculiar  fitness  and  talents  made  the  preference 
of  a  political  opponent  a  public  duty.  In  selecting 
among  political  friends,  I  have  ever  aimed  to  get  the 
right  man  in  the  right  place,  without  much  reference 
to  personal  consequences  to  myself.  Of  course,  I  like 
as  much  as  any  man  to  favor  personal  friends,  but  I 
have  never  thought  it  right  to  appoint  a  man  to  office 
merely  because  he  was  such,  without  a  careful  con- 
sideration of  his  qualifications  for  the  place.  I  have 
ever  held  my  country  as  my  best  friend,  and  value  those 
friends  most  who  serve  her  most  faithfully.  Is  there 
anything  blameworthy  in  all  this?    .     .     . 

You  know  my  views — the  public  first,  our  friends 
next.  So  far  as  preferences  can  be  legitimately  given 
so  as  to  aid  those  who,  at  considerable  sacrifice  of  time, 
labor,  and  money,  are  engaged  in  upholding  the  prin- 
ciples we  all  deem  vitally  important  to  the  welfare  of 
the  country,  I  think  it  a  clear  political  duty  that  they 
should  be  given.  But  no  public  interest  should  be  sac- 
rificed, no  public  duty  should  be  neglected,  for  any 
personal  or  party  consideration. — Schuckers,  pp.  274, 
275. 

To  Wm.  P.  Mellen,  March  26,  1862: 

.  .  .  I  am  not  fond  of  political  metaphysics.  The 
article  in  the  Evening  Post,  which  you  send  me,  suits 
me   well   enough       While   I   think   that   ihe   Government 


SALMON  P.   CHASE.  207 

in  suppression  of  the  rebellion,  and  in  view  of  the  de- 
struction by  suicide  of  the  rebel  State  governments 
with  the  actual  or  strongly  implied  consent  of  a  major- 
ity of  their  citizens,  may  regard  those  States  as  having 
so  far  forfeited  their  rights  that  they  may  justly  be 
treated  as  Territories,  I  have  never  proposed  to  make 
this  opinion  the  basis  of  political  measures.  I  much 
prefer  to  regard  each  State  as  still  existing  intact,  and 
to  be  subject  to  no  change  of  boundaries  except  such 
as  may  be  freely  consented  to  by  its  people.  I  want  to 
keep  all  the  stars,  and  all  the  stripes;  and  to  keep  all 
the  States  with  their  old  names  and  ensigns.  South 
Carolina  should  be  South  Carolina  still;  but  reformed, 
I  hope.  I  would  preserve,  not  destroy,  and  I  prefer 
civil  provisional  government,  authorized  by  Congress, 
to  military  government  instituted  by  the  President.— 
Schuckers,  p.  364. 

To  B.  R  Wood,  Copenhagen,  Denmark, 
April  2,  1862: 

There  have  been  other  occasions  in  the  course  of  the 
struggle  in  which  it  seemed  to  me  that  a  different 
course  from  that  actually  adopted  would  have  been 
better.  This  is  especially  true  in  relation  to  slavery. 
It  has  seemed  to  me  from  the  early' days  of  the  conflict 
that  it  was  bad  policy  as  well  as  bad  principle  to  give 
any  support  to  the  institution.     . 

My  idea  was -not  to  declare  emancipation— but  sim- 
ply to  treat  the  population  just  as  we  found  it,  loyal 
or  disloyal;  and  the  blask  loyalist  better  than  a  white 
rebel,  and  the  same  as  a  white  loyalist.  And  I  could 
see  no  <*alid  objection  to  enlisting  acclimated  blacks, 
loyal  and  willing  to  serve,  any  more  than  enlisting 
white  ones.  But  I  have  not  been  able  to  make  our 
friends  in  the  administration  see  as  I  have  seen:  and  I 
certainly  do  not  claim  to  be  more  wise  than  they. 
When  therefore,  I  am  overfilled,  I  have  quietly  sub. 
mitted  -loing  all  I  could  to  carry  forward  the  cause 
ana  tne  wotk,  it  not  in  my  preferred  way,  yet  it.  the 
best  way  possible  for  me.— Schuckers,  p.  366. 

June  24,  1862,  to  Major  General  Butler,  New 
Orleans: 


20S  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

.  .  .  In  my  judgment,  it  is  indispensable  to  fix 
upon  some  principle  of  action  and  abide  by  it.  Until 
long  after  the  fall  of  Sumter,  J  clung  to  my  old  ider.s 
of  non-interference  with  Slavery  within  State  limits 
by  the  Federal  Government.  It  was  my  hope  and  lie- 
lief  that  the  rebellion  might  be  suppressed,  and  slavery 
left  to  the  free  disposition  of  the  States  within  which 
the  institution  existed.  By  them,  I  thought  it  certain 
that  the  removal  of  the  institution  would  be  gradually 
effected  without  shock  or  disturbance  or  injury,  but 
peaceably  and  beneficially.  But  the  war  has  been 
protracted  far  beyond  my  anticipations,  and  with  the 
nostponement  of  decisive  results  came  increased  bitter- 
ness and  intensified  alienation  of  nearly  the  entire 
white  population  of  the  slave  States.  With  this  state 
of  facts  came  the  conviction  to  iny  mind  that  the  res- 
toration of  the  old  TJnion  with  slavery  untouched  ex- 
cept by  the  mere  weakening  effects  of  the  war,  was 
impossible.  Looking  attentively  at  the  new  state  of 
things,  I  became  satisfied  that  a  great  majority  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States  had  made  up  their  minds 
that  the  constitutional  supremacy  of  the  nat:onal 
Government  should  be  vindicated,  and  the  territorial 
integrity  of  the  country  maintained,  come  or  go  what 
might.  I  became  satisfied  also  that  to  secure  the  ac- 
complishment of  these  great  objects,  slavery  must  go. 

I  begin  with  the  proposition  that  we  must  either 
abandon  the  attempt  to  retain  the  Gulf  States,  or  that 
we  must  give  freedom  to  every  slave  within  their 
limits.  We  cannot  maintain  the  contest  with  the  dis- 
advantages of  unacclimated  troops  and  distant  supplies 
against  an  enemy  able  to  bring  one-half  the  population 
under  arms,  with  the  other  half  held  to  labor,  at  no 
cost  except  that  of  bare  subsistence,  for  the  armed 
moiety.     .     .     . 

As  to  the  border  states,  even  including  Arkansas,  a 
different  rule  may  be  adopted.  In  these  states  the 
President's  plan  of  compensated  emancipation  may  be 
adequate  to  a  solution  of  the  slavery  question ;  though 
I  confess  my  apprehensions  that  the  slaveholders  of 
these  States  will  delay  acceptance  of  the  proposition 
until  it  will  become  impossible  to  induce  Congress  to 
vote  the  compensation.     .     .     Schuckers,  pp.  37b,  377. 


SALMON  P.   CHASE.  209 

To  Major  General  John  Pope.  August  1, 
1862: 

Allow  me  to  express  a  hope  that  you  will  deal  gen- 
erously and  kindly  with  the  blacks,  who  are  almost  all 
loyal.  They  have  rendered  great  services  in  many 
cases,  and  have  then  been  given  up  to  slavery.  This  is 
too  bad.  If  I  were  in  the  field,  I  would  let  every  man 
understand  that  no  man  loyal  to  the  Union  can  be  a 
slave.  We  must  come  to  this.  The  public  sentiment 
of  the  world,  common -sense,  and  common  justice,  de- 
mand it.  The  sooner  we  respect  the  demand.,  the  bet- 
ter for  us  and  for  our  cause. — Schuckers,  pp.  378,  379. 

To  Sena  or  John  Sherman,  September  20, 
1862: 

Since  General  Halleck  has  been  here  the  conduct  of 
the  war  has  been  abandoned  to  him  by  the  President 
almost  absolutely.  We  who  are  called  members  of  the 
Cabinet,  but  are  in  reality  only  separate  heads  of  De- 
partments, meeting  now  and  then  for  talk  on  what- 
ever happens  to  come  uppermost  —  not  for  grave  consul- 
tation on  matters  ccncerning  the  salvation  of  the 
country—  we  have  as  little  to  do  with  it  as  if  we  were 
heads  of  factories  supplying  shoes  or  clothing.  No 
regular  and  systematic  reports  of  what  is  done  are 
made,  I  believe,  even  to  the  President;  certainly  none 
are  made  to  the  Cabinet. — Schuckers,  p.  379. 

To  Horace  Greeley,  January  28,  1863: 

.  .  .  Why  don't  you— who  can  so  well  point  out 
the  path  which  others  ought  to  walk — do  your  part 
toward  the  great  and  indispensable  work  of  establish- 
ing a  uniform  national  currency.     .     .     . 

But  this  is  apart  from  the  great  question— which  is 
not  second  to  any  connected  with  the  war  itself  *u  this 
time.  WThat  financial  measures  can  take  us  back  to 
the  firm  ground  from  which  the  legislation  of  last  ses- 
sion freed  us?  .  .  .  The  main  point  is  the  banking 
bill.  A  circulation  issued  directly  by  the  Government 
cannot  be  made  <*  good  currency.  The  difficulty  is 
partly  in  the  nature  of  the  thing  and  partly  in  the  na 
ture  of  men.  The  total  difficulty  is  unsurmoun table, 
and  so  says  all  experience. — Schuckers,  pp.  386,  387, 


210  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES- 

Concerning  the  arrest  of  Val'andigham,  he 
writes,  June  15,  1863: 

.  .  .  If  Vallandigham  violated  any  law,  he  should 
have  been  arrested,  tried,  and  convicted.     .     .     . 

I  have  never  myself  been  much  afraid  of  words ;  and 
when  men  (Vallandigham  among  themi  have  sought  to 
cripple  the  financial  administration  by  misrepresen- 
tation and  villification,  I  have  preferred  to  reply  by 
augmented  efforts  in  the  service  of  the  country  rather 
than  by  arrest  and  imprisonment. — Schuekers,  p.  391. 

To  Ex-Governor  William  Sprague,  Novem- 
ber 26,  1863;  to  Jacob  Heaton,  January  28, 
1864;  and  to  Seward,  May  30,  1864: 

.  .  .  If  I  were  controlled  by  merely  personal  sen- 
timents, I  should  prefer  the  reelection  of  Mr.  Lincoln 
to  that  of  any  other  man.  But  I  doubt  the  expediency 
of  re-electing  anybody,  and  I  think  a  man  of  different 
qualities  from  those  the  President  has  will  be  needed 
for  the  next  four  years.  I  am  not  anxious  to  be  re- 
garded as  that  man;  and  I  am  quite  willing  to  leave 
that  question  to  the  decision  of  those  who  agree  in 
thinking  that  some  such  man  should  be  chosen.    .    .    . 

I  can  never  permit  myself  to  be  driven  into  any  hos- 
tile or  unfriendly  position  as  to  Mr.  Lincoln.  His 
course  toward  me  has  always  been  so  fair  and  kind: 
his  progress  toward  entire  agreement  with  me  on  the 
great  question  of  slavery  has  been  so  constant,  though 
rather  slower  than  I  wished  for,  and  his  general  char- 
acter is  so  marked  by  traits  which  command  respect 
and  affection,  that  I  can  never  consent  to  anything 
which  he  himself  could  or  would  consider  as  incompat- 
ible with  perfect  honor  and  good  faith,  if  I  were 
capable— which  I  hope  I  am  not— of  a  departure  from 
either,  even  where  an  enemy  might  be  concerned.  .  . 
.  I  should  despise  myself  if  I  felt  capable  of  appoint- 
ing or  removing  a  man  for  the  sake  of  the  presidency. 

I  have  never  sought  to  manage  newspapers.  If  they 
have  supported  me  I  have  been  glad  of  it  and  grateful. 
If  they  have  opposed,  it  has  been  their  own  matter,  and 
I  have  let  them  take  their  course.     I  have  never  under- 


SALMON  P.   CHASE.  211 

taken  and  never  shall   undertake  to  manipulate    the 
press.     .     .     . 

So  far  as  the  presidency  is  concerned,  I  must  leave 
that  wholly  to  the  people.     .     .     . 

So  far  as  ils  all  jgntion  concerns  me  personally,  they 
are  utterly  witho  it  warrant.  In  the  sense  intended  by 
the  words,  I  havo  never  been  a  presidential  aspirant. 
Since  my  letter  to  Senator  Hall,  or  rather,  through  him 
to  my  friends  in  Ohio,  I  have  avoided  all  thought  and 
talk  about  the  presidential  nomination,  and  have  cer- 
tainly neither  asked  nor  sought  nor  expected  it  myself. 

The  patronage  of  this  department  is  not  and  never 
has  been  used  with  reference  to  that  nomination. — 
Schuckers,  pp,  494,  495,  497,  505. 

From  Mr.  Chase's  journal  July  13,  1864: 
.  .  .  1  have  seen  the  President  twice  since  I  have 
been  here.  Both  times  third  persons  were  present,  and 
there  was  nothing  like  private  conversation.  His  man- 
ner was  cordial  and  so  were  his  words;  and  I  hear  of 
nothing  but  good-wi;l  from  him.  But  he  is  not  at  all 
demonstrative,  either  in  speech  or  manner.  I  feel  that 
I  do  not  know  him,  and  I  found  no  action  on  what  he 
says  or  does.  ...  It  is  my  conviction  that  the 
cause  I  love  and  the  general  interests  of  the  country 
will  be  best  promoted  by  his  re-election,  and  I  have  re- 
solved to  join  my  efforts  to  those  of  almost  the  whole 
body  of  my  friends  in  securing  it.  ...  I  have  been 
told  that  the  President  said  he  and  I  could  not  get 
along  together  in  the  Cabinet.  Doubtless  there  was  a 
difference  of  temperament,  and  on  some  points,  of  judg- 
ment. I  may  have  been  too  earnest  and  eager,  while  I 
thought  him  not  earnest  enough  and  too  slow.  On 
some  occasions,  indeed,  I  found  that  it  was  so.  But  I 
never  desired  anything  else  than  his  complete  success, 
and  never  indulged  a  personal  feeling  incompatible  with 
absolute  fidelity  to  his  administration.  To  assure  that 
success"  T  labored  incessantly  in  the  Treasure  Depart- 
ment, with  what  resmlts  the  world  knows.  ...  It 
is  now  certain  that  Mr.  Lincoln  will  be  reelected. 
May  his  name  go  down  to  posterity  with  the  two 
noblest  additions  historians  ever  recorded — Restorer 
and  Liberator.— Schuckers,  pp.  511,  512. 


212  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

Extracts  from  letters  to  various  persons  from 
April  12,  1865,  to  March  16,  1868,  concerning 
Reconstruction: 

Once  I  should  have  been,  if  not  satisfied,  partially, 
at  least,  contented  with  suffrage  for  the  intelligent  and 
for  those  who  have  been  soldiers;  now  I  am  convinced 
that  universal  suffrage  is  demanded  by  sound  policy 
and  impartial  justice.     .     .     . 

I  observe  that  you  say  that  the  attempt  to  carry  on 
the  Government  with  the  privilege  of  universal  suf- 
frage incorporated  as  one  of  its  elements  is  full  of 
danger.  Danger  is  the  condition  of  all  governments; 
because  no  form  of  government  insures  wise  and 
beneficent  administration.  But  I  beg  you  to  consider, 
is  there  not  a  greater  danger  without  than  with  uni- 
versal suffrage?  You  cannot  make  suffrage  less  than 
universal  for  the  whites,  and  will  not  the  attempt  to 
discriminate  excite  such  jealousies  and  illfeeling  as 
will  postpone  to  a  distant  future  what  seems  so  essen- 
tial, namely,  the  restoration  of  general  good  will  and 
bringing  into  lead  the  educated  men  and  the  men  of 
property,  and  so  securing  the  best  and  most  beneficial 
administration  of  affairs  for  all  classes?  Take  uni- 
versal suffrage  and  universal  amnesty,  and  all  will  be 
well.  Can  you,  my  dear  sir,  devote  your  fine  powers 
to  a  better  work  than  complete  restoration  on  this 
basis?    .     .     . 

1  have  no  sympathy  with  the  spirit  which  refuses  to 
strew  flowers  upon  the  graves  of  the  dead  soldiers  who 
fought  against  the  side  I  took;  and  I  am  glad  to  know 
that  there  was  no  such  spirit  among  those  who  joined 
in  decorating  the  graves  of  the  soldiers  of  the  Union 
who  lie  buried  in  Magnolia  Cemetery.     .     .     . 

I  notice  that  you  more  than  intimate  that  my  letter 
was  prompted  by  ambition.  It  certainly  was  not.  I 
do  not  think  that  I  ever  was  so  ambitious  as  some  un- 
ambitious people  have  represented  me.  At  any  rate,  I 
am  how  unconscious  of  any  other  ambition  than  that 
of  doing  as  much  good  and  as  little  harm  as  possible. 
...  I  never  favored  interference  by  Congress  with 
slavery  in  the  states;  but,  as  a  war  measure,  Mr.  Lin- 
coln's proclamation  of  emancipation  had  my  hearty 


SALMON  P.    CHASE.  213, 

assent.  and  I  united,  as  a  member  of  his  Administra- 
tion, in  the  pledge  it  made  to  maintain  the  freedom  of 
the  enfranchised  people.  This  pledge  has  been  partly 
redeemed  by  the  constitutional  amendment  prohibit 
ing  slavery  throughout  the  United  States;  but  its  per 
feet  fulfillment  requires,  in  my  judgment,  the  assur- 
ance of  the  right  of  suffrage  to  those  whom  the 
Constitution  ha?  made  freemen  and  citizens.  Hence,  I 
have  been  and  am  in  favor  of  so  much  of  the  recon- 
struction policy  of  Congress  as  bases  the  reorganiza- 
:ion  of  the  State  governments  in  the  South  upon  uni- 
versal suffrage.  ...  I  have  been  a  steady  friend 
to  the  congressional  policy  of  reconstruction  so  far  a? 
it  has  contemplate!  equal  rights  for  all,  secured  by 
aqual  constitutions  and  laws.  But  I  do  not  believe  in 
military  domination  any  more  than  I  do  in  a  slave- 
holding  oligarchy;  nor  do  I  believe  that  anything  has 
been  accomplished  by  military  supremacy  in  the  rebel 
States  that  could  not  have  been  as  well,  if  not  better, 
accomplished  by  civil  supremacy,  authorized  and  regu- 
lated by  Congress,  with  military  subordination.  But 
I  prefer  even  military  domination  for  a  time,  itself 
controlled  and  directed  by  Congress,  with  an  honest 
reference  to  restoration  of  the  States  to  full  participa- 
tion in  the  government,  with  suffrage  secured  to  all 
who  will  not  seek  to  withhold  it  from  others,  to  any 
auch  plan  as  that  proposed  by  the  President. —  Schuek- 
ZT'S,  pp.  517,  529,  530,  563,  575. 

QUESTIONS 

(1)  What  characteristic  do  you  find  manifested  iu 
Chase's  early  training?  (2  What  conceptions  in  Massa- 
chusetts of  Ohio  in  early  day3?  (3)  What  die?  his  uncle 
think  about  government  clerkships?  (4  Did  he  care 
for  society?     (5i  When  admitted  to  the  law? 

(1)  How  did  Chase  regard  slavery?  (2  Bring  all  the 
proofs  you  can  find  to  prove  your  position.  (3)'  What 
parties  can  you  find  proof  for  his  having  belonged  to? 
(4)  How  true  to  their  professions  does  he  find  political 
parties?  (5)  Did  he  love  political  life?  (6  Proofs  to 
sustain  your  answer.     (7.  How  did  he  regard  Lincoln? 

1 8)  Was  he  favorable  or  not  to  compromise  in  1800-61 1 

1 9)  Find  all  passages  bearing  on  the  subject.  (10)  How 
did  he  regard  Buchanan's  policy  of  1861?  (11)  Wha* 
would  have  been  his  plan?  (12)  What  is  the  main 
thought  yon  get  from  his  letter  to  his  sister?  (13;  Does 
his  letter  to  Taft  agree  with  his  other  writings? 


#14  AMERICAN    HISTORY   STUDIES. 

(1)  What  was  his  opinion  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill?  (2)  What  danger  did  he  see  in  it?  (3)  Compare 
his  letter  to  Seward  with  his  letter  to  Taft.  (4)  Was 
he  a  believer  in  making  United  States  notes  [green- 
backs] legal  tender?  (5)  Compare  his  positions  on  the 
subject  in  1862  and  1868.  (6)  What  relation  did  he  be- 
lieve the  southern  seceded  states  bore  to  the  Union? 

(1)  How  would  he  treat  the  negroes?  (2)  Collect  the 
proofs  for  your  answer.  (3)  Was  he  a  believer  in  the 
arrest  of  Vallandigham?  (4)  Was  he  favorable  to  Lin- 
coln's re-election  in  18(54?  i5)  What  view  did  he  take 
of  the  plan  adopted  in  regard  to  the  reconstruction  of 
the  southern  states?  i6i  Write  a  life  of  S.  P.  Chase 
basud  on  these  documents. 


JAMES  GILLESPIE  BLAINE 


Born  in  Pennsylvania,  1830.  Graduate  of 
Washington  and  Jefferson  College.  Taught 
school  in  Kentucky,  1847-50.  Citizen  of  Maine, 
1S54.  Member  of  Maine  legislature,  1858-1862. 
Member  of  House  of  Representatives,  1862-1876. 
Speaker,  1869-1876.  Candidate  for  nomination 
for  President,  1876, 1S80, 1892.  Candidate,  1884. 
Senator,  1876-1881.  Secretary  of  state,  1881, 
1889-1892.    Died,  1893. 


CHAPTER  X 

JAMES  GILLESPIE  BLAINE 

WE  1  egan  this  series  of  studies  with  Al- 
bert Gallatin.  It  is  now  brought  to 
a  close  with  the  death  of  Blaine  in 
1893.  Practically  one  hundred  years  of  Amer- 
ican history  have  been  covered,  as  Gallatin  may 
be  said  to  have  come  into  prominence  as  a  na- 
tional statesman  about  1793. 

Four  generations  of  American  legisla'  ors  may 
be  said  to  have  passed  across  the  political  stage. 
Of  these  Gallatin  only,  of  those  we  have  studied, 
belonged  to  the  earliest  period.  Jefferson, 
Madison,  Hamilton,  and  Monroe  also  come  be- 
fore us  asdistinguished  men  who  might  well 
have  had  a  place  in  our  list.  However,  most 
of  them  would  more  properly,  perhaps,  be 
classed  with  Washington  as  great  administra- 
tors rather  than  with  Gallatin  as  legislators. 
In  the  second  period  we  have  studied  J.  Q. 
Adams,  Clay,  Webster,  and  Calhoun,  four  men 
who  stand  out  pre-eminent  among  the  statesmen 
of  their  time.  In  the  main  we  have  considered 
these  men  from  the  standpoint  of  legislators. 
Each  of  them,  however,  was  great  also  as  an 
administrator,  and  some  of  them  achieved  fame 
in  diplomacy  as  well.  Lincoln's  name  is  the 
only  one  in  the  third  quarter  of  our  century 
that  may  be  said  to  tower  above  those  that  we 
have  studied,  and  his  name  is  distinguished  in 


JAMES   G.    BLAINE.  217 

other  fields  than  that  of  legislation.  Seward, 
Sumner,  Chase,  and  Douglas  were  dominant 
forces  in  American  politics  in  the  years  just  be- 
fore and  during  the  Civil  War.  Of  those  who 
have  struggled  primarily  with  the  problem  of 
reconstruction  and  other  post-bellum  questions 
only  one  name  has  been  considered— the  name 
of  Blaine;  perhaps  not  the  most  constructive 
statesman  of  this  fourth  period,  but  the  one 
who  had  on  the  whole  the  greatest  popular 
following. 

The  extracts  made  bring  out,  it  is  hoped,  the 
main  points  in  Blaine's  early  life,  as  well  as  the 
principles  for  which  he  stood  in  his  more  ma- 
ture years  There  is  no  adequate  collection  of 
his  letters  and  speeches  as  yet  made,  so  it  be- 
comes much  more  difficult  than  in  the  cases  of 
the  other  men  we  have  studied  to  make  the  best 
selections.  Perhaps  also  we  are  yet  too  near 
his  period  to  appreciate  fully  the  strong  and 
the  weak  points  in  his  career.  Time  only  can 
tell  what  his  ultimate  place  in  American  history 
will  be. 

Blaine's  father  was  quite  a  skillful  politician. 
Once  he  was  charged  with  being  a  Catholic,  as 
his  wife  was.  He  asked  the  Catholic  priest 
for  a  statement  to  the  contrary  and  received 
the  following.  He  was  equal  to  the  emergency, 
however,  and  succeeded  in  winning  the  election: 

This  is  to  certify  that  Ephraim  L.  Blaine  is  not  now 
and  never  was  a  member  of  the  Catholic  chnrch;  and 
furthermore,  in  my  opinion,  he  is  not  fit  to  be  a  mem- 
ber of  any  church.  .  .  .  — Gail  Hamilton's  Life  of 
Blaine,  p.  73. 

A  note  from  an  early  friend: 

You  know,  and  r  ^rhaps  he  knew,  what  my  feeling 
toward  him  was,  always  has  been,  with  no  weakening 


218  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

or  shadow  of  turning.  He  buckled  one's  heart  to  him 
with  ''hooks  of  steel."  I  so  well  remember  when  and 
where  I  saw  him  first.  It  was  when  he  was  in  college,  in 
Washington,  at  a  gay  little  picnic  He  was  the  life 
and  the  light  of  the  fete,  so  joyous  were  his  spirits,  so 
incessant  the  play  of  his  wit.  .  .  .  — Life  of  Blaine, 
p.  78. 

Recommendations  from  Blaine's  Professors, 
October  1,  1847: 

Mr.  James  G.  Blaine  having  gone  through  a  regular 
and  full  course  in  Washington  College  Penn.  was  grad- 
uated Sept.  29.  1847.  During  the  whole  period  of  his 
connection  with  College  he  maintained  the  character 
of  a  very  punctual,  orderly,  diligent  and  successful 
student.  His  demeanor  was  always  respectful,  and 
becoming  a  gentleman.  When  graduated,  to  him  with 
two  others,  was  awarded  the  first  Honor  of  a  large,  & 
respectable  class  of  thirty-three.  He  is  of  one  of  the 
most  respectable  families  of  Washington  County;  &  bt 
propriety  of  conduct,  polite  and  pleasing  manners  will 
entitle  himself  to  a  place  in  the  best  society.  If  he 
should  become  an  Instructor  in  a  High  School,  Acad- 
emy, or  College,  his  talents,  literary  acquirements, 
dignity,  decision,  fidelity,  &  prudence  will  not  fail  to 
merit  the  confidence,  &  approbation  of  those  who  may 
obtain  his  services. 

Of  your  qualifications  for  teaching,  so  far  as  these 
depend  upon  character  and  scholarship,  I  may  speak 
with  the  highest  confidence.  Your  knowledge  of  the 
languages  especially,  being  critical  beyond  what  is 
often  attained  at  college,  fits  you  in  a  special  manner 
for  the  office  of  instructor  in  this  department. 

In  a  word,  sir,  I  feel  assured  that  those  who  may  be 
so  fortunate  as  to  secure  your  services  in  this  capacity 
V^ill,  when  you  become  known  to  them  as  you  are 
known  to  us,  be  satisfied  that  no  recommendation  of 
ours  has  been  in  the  least  exaggerated. 

The  professor  of  mathematics  thought  it  "but  jus- 
tice to  him  to  say  that  in  my  department  Mr.  Blaine 
specially  excels.  From  the  commencement  of  his 
course  in  mathematical  studies  he  manifested  a  pecu- 
liar fondness  for  them;  his  recitations  gave  evidence 
of  thorough  investigation,  and  his  demonstrations  were 


JAMES    G-     BLAINE.  219 

characterized  by  clearness,  accuracy,  and  precision.  "-- 
TAfi  of  Blaine,  pp.  80,  81. 

Blaine  writes  of  himself  to  a  friend  in  these 
words,  in  1869: 

.  .  .  From  Lexington  he  went  to  Louisville,  thence 
to  Maysville,  thence  to  Cincinnati,  and  the  morning  he 
left  the  last-named  place,  December  4,  [1837]  he  heard 
that  Robert  C.  Winthrop  was  just  elected  speaker  of 
the  United  States  House  of  Representatives.  He  im- 
mediately notified  his  friends  that  he  was  a  candidate 
for  the  succession,  and  in  the  incredibly  brief  space  of 
twenty-two  years  he  attained  the  place— a  remarkable 
instance  of  faith,  patience,  and  despatch  harmoniously 
combined.  But  I  do  not  mean  to  imply  that  there  is 
any  immediate,  or  palpable,  or  recognizable  connection 
between  the  rainy  Sunday  of  Lexington  in  November, 
1*47.  and  my  election  to  the  speakership  in  18G9.—  Life 
of  Blaine,  p.  S3. 

In  a  letter  of  December  2,  1847,  to  his  friend 
J.  M.  Clark,  he  says: 

I  have  procured  a  situation  as  assistant  teacher  of 
languages  in  the  Western  Military  Institute  located 
at  Georgetown.  ...  I  will  have  to  teach  the  pre- 
paratory course  in  Latin  and  Greek,  and  have  a  class 
in  Davis's  Elementary  Algebra,  so  you  see  my  situation 
will  be  a  very  pleasant  one  as  regards  the  branches  I 
have  to  teach.  ...  I  have  no  doubt  now  but  that 
he  will  be  the  Whig  candidate;  even  if  he  is  not  he  can 
run  as  an  Independent,  and  such  is  the  wild  enthusiasm 
of  the  American  people  for  a  military  h?ro  that  he 
will  run  ahead  of  anything  that  either  party  can  bring 
out.  .  .  .  For  my  part,  I  would  rather  see  James 
Buchanan  president  than  General  Taylor,  if  he  had  not 
had  so  large  a  fist  in  the  affairs  of  the  present  adminis- 
tration. That  will  ruin  him.  ...  In  conclusion,  I 
would  just  say  that  I  would  like  to  see  both  candidates 
selected  from  among  the  citizens.  I  don't  like  these 
military  presidents  that  "go  in"  on  account  of  their 
"gunpowder  popularity."—  Life,  pp.  86,  89. 

His  political  tendencies  may  be  seen  in  these 
extracts  from  a  letter  to  T.  B.  Searight  April  8, 
1849: 
15 


220  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

Although  there  have  been  few  removals  made,  yon 
Democrats  need  not  flatter  yourselves  that  this  admin- 
istration is  going  to  play  the  "betwixt  and  betwyn" 
— pursue  a  temporizing  policy.  You  will  find  that 
about  June  and  July  and  along  there  the  heads  will 
begin  to  come  off  pretty  rapidly.  I  am  looking  for  and 
hoping  for  a  General  Bee > pita  Hon.  I  have  had  some 
advices  from  headquarters,  and  this  opinion  is  formed 
from  them.  .  .  .  You  have  no  doubt  seen  Mr.  Clay's 
letter.  lie  is  strong  for  emancipation  and  colonization, 
but  he  has  many  bitter  and  able  opponents  to  en- 
counter, and  the  day  has  long  since  gone  by  when 
Henry  Clay's  will  was  law  in  Kentucky. —  L>fe,  p.  95. 

His  next  moves  are  seen  in  these  extracts: 
My  address  after  first  September  will  be  Pennsylva- 
nia Institute  for  the  Blind.  .  .  .  November  10, 
1854,  the  Kennebec  Journal  announced  that  the  estab- 
lishment had  been  "sold  to  Messrs.  Joseph  Baker  and 
J.  G.  Blaine,  who  would  thereafter  conduct  its  edito- 
rial and  business  affairs.—  Life,  pp.  97,  100. 

In  the  midst  of  politics  as  this  extract  shows: 
I  think  the  nomination  the  very  best  that  could  have 
been  made  in  every  way,  and  I  have  no  more  doubt  of 
the  election  of  the  ticket  than  I  have  that  Maine  will 
be  carried  by  the  Republicans.  Governor  Morrill  and 
myself  worked  hard  for  Lincoln  from  the  time  we 
reached  Chicago,  and  you  may  depend  we  feel  no  little 
gratification  at  the  result.     .     .     .—Life,  p.  129. 

In  1860  he  writes  to  Geo.  H.  Andrews  as  fol- 
lows, declining  to  stand  as  a  candidate  for  Con- 
gress; in  1862,  however,  he  was  nominated,  and 
he  accepts,  in  the  words  quoted  below: 

My  dear  Sir:— Your  kind  and  friendly  favor  of  the 
2?>d  is  before  me.  The  tender  of  your  support  for  the 
honorable  post  of  representative  in  Congress  is  exceed- 
ingly gratifying  and  flattering  to  me,  and  proves  that 
I  have  not  reckoned  amiss  in  counting  you  among  my 
mo3t  earnest  friends.  It  is  proper,  however,  to  advise 
vou  that  I  am  not  a  candidate  for  that  position.  It 
may  possibly  be  known  to  you  that  Ex-Governor  Morrill 
desires  the  nomination,  and  I  should  consider  it  both 


JAMES   G.    BLAINE.  221 

ungenerous  and  unjust  for  me  to  allow  my  name  to  be 
used  against  him.  He  has  done  much  and  sacrificed 
much  for  the  Republican  party  in  the  day  of  its  trial 
and  its  need,  and  the  opportunity  seems  now  to  be  pre- 
sented for  suitably  and  cordially  recognizing  his  worth 
and  his  services.  You  can  readily  see  how  unbecoming 
it  would  be  in  a  man  of  my  years  to  contest  the  nomi- 
nation with  him,  even  if  I  personally  desired  to  do  so. 
Its  effect  could  only  be  to  divide  the  hitherto  harmon- 
ious ranks  of  the  Republicans  of  Kennebec. 

I  shall  therefore  most  cheerfully  support  Governor 
Morrill  for  the  nomination,  and  shall  urge  all  my 
friends  to  do  the  same.     .     .     . 

In  this  accepting  speech  [1862]  he  announced  as  his 
platform — Abraham  Lincoln.  "  If  I  am  called  to  a  seat 
in  Congress,  I  shall  go  there  with  a  determination  to 
stand  heartily  and  unreservedly  by  the  administration 
of  Abraham  Lincoln.  In  the  success  of  that  adminis- 
tration, under  the  good  providence  of  God,  rests,  I  sol- 
emnly believe,  the  fate  of  the  American  Union.  If  we 
cannot  subdue  the  rebellion  through  the  Agency  of  the 
administration,  there  is  no  other  power  given  under 
Heaven  among  men  to  which  wre  can  appeal.  Hence 
I  repeat  that  I  shall  conceive  it  to  be  my  duty,  as  your 
representative,  to  be  the  unswerving  adherent  of  the 
Policy  and  measures  which  the  President  in  his  wisdom 
may  adopt.  The  case  is  one,  in  the  present  exigency, 
where  men  loyal  to  the  Union  cannot  divide.  The 
President  is  Commander-in-Chief  of  our  land  and  naval 
forces,  and  while  he  may  be  counselled  he  must  not  be 
opposed." 

On  the  great  question  which  had  already  become  not 
slavery,  but  emancipation,  he  spoke  wTith  veiled,  but 
not  vague  voice:  "The  great  object  with  us  all  is  tv 
subdue  the  rebellion  speedily,  effectually,  finally.  In 
our  march  to  that  end  we  must  crush  all  intervening 
obstacles.  If  slavery,  or  any  other  "institution," 
stands  in  the  waj~,  it  must  be  removed.  Perish  all 
things  else,  the  national  life  must  be  saved.  My  indi- 
vidual convictions  of  what  may  be  needful  are  perhaps 
in  advance  of  those  entertained  by  some,  and  less  rad- 
ical than  those  conscientiously  held  by  others.  Whether 
they  are  the  one  or  the  other,  however,  I  do  not  wish 


222  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

to  see  an  attempt  made  to  carry  them  out  until  it  can 
be  done  by  an  administration  sustained  by  the  resistless 
energy  of  the  loyal  masses.  I  think,  myself,  those 
masses  are  rapidly  adopting  the  idea  that  to  smite  the 
rebellion  its  malignant  cause  must  be  smitten." — Life, 
pp.  137,  13S. 

His  views  in  regard  to  the  future  taxation 
problems  of  the  country  are  foreshadowed  in 
this  extract: 

In  March,  1865,  defending  an  amendment  of  the 
Constitution,  which  should  strike  out  the  clause  that 
forbids  the  taxing  of  exports,  in  a  speech,  which  caused 
an  extraordinary  agitation  throughout  the  country,  he 
had  declared  that  in  the  future  of  our  country  "the 
great  task  and  test  of  statesmanship  will  be  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  our  finances  and  the  wise  distribution  of 
the  burdens  of  taxation.  .  .  .  An  immense  amount  of 
money  will  be  required  to  meet  the  interest  of  our  Na- 
tional debt,  to  maintain  our  army  and  navy— even  on  a 
peace  foundation,  and  to  defray  the  ordinary  expenses  of 
civil  government.  The  revenue  for  these  objects  may 
be  raised  so  injudiciously  as  to  cripple  and  embarrass 
the  commercial  and  industrial  interests  of  the  whole 
country;  or  on  the  other  hand,  the  requisite  tax  may 
be  so  equitably  distributed  and  so  skilfuly  assessed 
that  the  burden  will  be  inappreciable  to  the  public. 
Whoever,  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  shall  accom- 
plish the  latter  and  avoid  the  former  result,  must  be 
armed  with  a  plentitude  of  power  in  the  premises. 
He  must  have  open  to  him  the  three  great  avenues  of 
taxation— the  tariff,  the  excise  system  and  the  duties 
on  exports;  and  must  be  empowered  to  use  each  in  its 
apjjropriate  place  by  Congressional  legislation.  At 
present,  only  two  of  these  modes  of  taxation  are  avail- 
able and  the  absence  of  the  third  takes  from  the  gen- 
eral government  half  the  regulation  of  trade.  It  is 
for  Congress  to  say  whether  the  people  shall  have  an 
opportunity  to  change  the  organic  law  in  this  import- 
ant respect,  or  whether  with  a  blind  disregard  of  the 
future  we  shall  rush  forward,  reckless  of  the  financial 
disasters  that  may  result  from  a  fail  are  uo  do  our  duty 
here."    .  .     Life,  pp.  195,  196. 


JAMES    G.     BLAINE.  323 

In  regard  to  a  bill  to  prevent  the  appoint- 
ment of  sons  of  southern  men  who  had  been  in 
rebellion,  he  said: 

.  .  .  I  differ  entirely  with  the  Committee.  I  do 
not  believe  in  punishing  children  in  the  rebel  states. 
When  this  war  began  the  persons  eligible  to  be  ap- 
pointed to  West  Point  were  nine,  ten  or  eleven  years 
of  age,  and  I  do  not  propose  to  punish  them  for  the 
faults  of  their  fathers.  ...  I  am  opposed  to  keep- 
ing up  this  imaginary  line.  I  should  think  the  gentle- 
man from  Pennsylvania  would  see— if  I  had  not  a  great 
respect  for  him,  I  would  say — the  absurdity  of  such  a 
notion.  —Life,  p.  200. 

Again,  in  1869-70,  we  see  something  of  his 
political  views  in  a  debate  over  the  appropria- 
tion bill.     He  said,  in  part: 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  total  amount  appro- 
priated by  the  bill  is  143,199,500.  ...  I  desire 
for  myself,  to  say  now,  as  I  said  then,  that  it  is  my 
conviction  that  the  army  ought  to  be  reduced.  I  had 
the  honor  to  introduce  last  year  a  provision  in  the 
Army  Appropriation  Bill  for  the  reduction  of  the  army, 
which  did  not  meet  with  the  concurrence  or  approval 
of  the  House.  .  .  .  Therefore,  the  Committee  on 
Appropriations  have  not  this-  year  made  any  recom- 
mendation touching  that  question.  But  in  order  to 
preserve  my  own  consistency,  which  is  important  to 
me  if  not  to  other  people,  I  hold  now  that  instead  of 
sixty  regiments,  this  Congress,  or,  if  not,  the  very  next, 
ought  to  provide  for  the  reduction  of  the  army  to 
thirty  regiments,  or  just  one-half  what  it  now  is. 

Genera]  Grant,  as  General-in-Chief  of  the  Army 
during  the  past  year,  has  done  everything  within  the 
existing  law,  and  under  the  power  that  the  law  confers 
upon  him,  to  reduce  the  army.     .     .     .     — Life,  p.  201. 

January  16,  1S69,  he  writes: 

You  write  very  sensibly  about  the  speakership.  Do 
not  imagine  that  I  am  unduly  excited  about  it,  or  that 
I  desire  it  with  an  intensity  which  leaves  me  unpre 
pared  for  failure  and  its  consequent  disappointment 
and  chagrin.     X   have  measured  the   whole   matter 


221  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

calmly,  logically,  and  philosophically.  I  mean  to  win 
if  1  can  fairly  and  honorably.  If  I  cannot,  there's  the 
end.  But  if  successful,  I  shall  not  have  the  ^elf -re- 
proach of  having  done  one  unworthy  act  to  secure  the 
place;  and  if  unsuccessful,  the  same  consciousness  will 
be  my  compensating  and  consoling  fact. 

Again,  January  4,  1871,  he  says: 

I  have  been  round  to  the  White  House  since  dinner 
to  call  on  the  President.  He  sent  for  me  and  we  had  a 
frank  chat  on  San  Domingo.  I  will  support  the  reso- 
lution of  inquiry,  but  am  against  the  final  acquisition. 

In  an  address  before  the  Northern  Wisconsin 
Agricultural  Society,  in  speaking  of  public  and 
priva'e  debts,  he  said  in  part: 

Debts  have  originated  .  .  .  not  to  promote  the  ends 
of  peace,  not  to  develop  agricultural  or  the  mechanic 
arts,  not  to  improve  harbors  and  the  navigation  of  rivers, 
not  to  found  institutions  of  learning,  or  of  charity,  or 
of  mercy,  not  to  elevate  the  standard  of  culture  among 
the  masses,  not  for  any  or  all  of  these  laudable  objects, 
but  for  the  waste,  the  cruelty,  the  untold  agonies  of 
war.  The  vast  mas3  of  this  prodigious  sum-total  not 
only  went  for  war,  but  for  wars  of  ambition  and  con- 
quest, in  which  the  fate  of  reigning  dynasties  was  the 
stake,  and  not  the  well-being  of  the  people  or  even  the 
aggrandizement  of  the  nation  itself  in  the  higher  and 
better  sense.     .     .     . 

But  in  regard  to  the  national  debt,  whatever  vain 
regrets  we  may  indulge  over  the  loss  of  so  much  treas- 
ure and  the  fearful  sacrifice  of  that  which  is  beyond 
earthly  price,  we  have  this  to  console,— that  the  war 
which  gave  rise  to  it  wa?  unavoidable,  apparently  fore- 
ran as  part  of  the  great  experience  of  bitterness  and 
of  blood  through  which  it  was  our  destiny  as  a  nation 
to  pass,  and  that  out  of  its  sorrowful  depths,  we  have 
emerged  a  regenerated  people,  doing  justice  to  a 
race  long  oppressed,  educated  ourselves  to  higher 
standards  of  liberty  and  of  law,  and  having  our  fee; 
hence. orth  shod  with  the  preparation  of  the  Gospel  of 
Peace.  —Life,  p.  312. 

Pol  itics  again ,  1 877 : 

,     ,     .     I  (]()  not  believe  a  new  departure  is  called 


JAMES   G.    BLAINE.  225 

for.  To  the  common  mind,  unbiased  and  unpreju- 
diced, no  difficulty  presents  itself  under  the  constitu- 
tional provision.  By  that  I  would  stand,  and  declare 
Hayes  elected,  and  inaugurate  him,  and  if  the  Demo- 
crats wish  to  appeal  to  the  courts,  let  them  do  so,  and 
we  will  quietly  abide  their  decision.  The  calling  in 
members  of  the  court  to  sit  with  coordinate  branches 
of  the  government  upon  questions  which  may  be  pre- 
sented to  them  to  decide  judicially  is,  to  say  the  least, 
questionable,  end  to  my  mind  unconstitutional. — Life, 
pp.  405,  406. 

The  view  taken  by  Blaine  in  regard  to  with- 
drawing the  troops  from  Louisiana,  in  1877, 
may  be  seen  in  this  extract: 

The  electoral  commission  decided  that  the  Louisiana 
returning  board  was  a  legal  and  constitutional  body 
competent  to  do  what  it  did.  What  it  did  do  was  to 
declare  who  were  the  presidential  electors  of  that 
State;  it  did  also  declare  who  were  the  legislature; 
and  the  Legislature,  performing  a  mere  ministerial 
duty,  declared  who  was  the  governor;  and  I  stand  here, 
if  I  stand  alone,  to  say  that  the  honor  and  the  credit  and 
the  faith  of  the  Republican  party,  in  so  far  as  the  elec- 
tion of  Hayes  and  Wheeler  is  concerned,  are  as  indis- 
solubly  united  in  maintaining  the  rightfulness  of  the 
return  of  that  body  as  the  illustrious  House  of  Han- 
over that  sits  on  the  throne  of  England  to-day  is 
in  maintaining  the  rightfulness  of  the  Revolution  of 
1688.  Discredit  Packard  and  you  discredit  Hayes. 
Hold  that  Packard  is  not  the  legal  governor  of  Louisi- 
ana, and  President  Hayes  ha3  no  title,  and  the  hon- 
ored vice-president,  who  presides  over  our  delibera- 
tions, has  no  title  to  his  chair.  The  Legislature,  the 
governor,  and  the  presidential  electors  of  Louisiana,  all 
derive  their  legality  and  their  right  to  act  from  the 
same  source  and  the  same  count,  and  if  the  one  is  dis- 
credited, the  other  is  discredited. 

I  know  that  there  has  been  a  great  deal  said  here 
and  there,  in  the  corridors  of  the  capitol,  around  and 
about,  in  by-places  and  high-places,  of  late,  that  some 
arrangements  had  been  made  by  which  Packard  was 
not  to  be  recognized  and  upheld.  I  want  to  know  who 
had  the  authority  to  make  any  such  arrangements    I 


220  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

deny  it.  I  deny  it  without  being  authorized  to  speak 
for  the  administration  that  now  exists.  But  I  deny  it 
on  the  simple  broad  ground  that  it  is  an  impossibility. 
.  .  .  I  deny  it  on  the  broad  ground  that  President 
Hayes  possesses  character,  common-sense,  self-respect 
patriotism,  all  of  which  he  has  in  high  measure.  I 
deny  it  on  all  the  grounds  that  can  influence  human  ac- 
tion, on  all  the  grounds  on  which  men  can  be  held  to 
personal  and  political  and  official  responsibility.  I 
deny  it  for  him,  and  I  shall  find  myself  grievously  dis- 
appointed, wounded  and  mutilated  if  my  denial  is  not 
vindicated  in  the  policy  of  the  administration.  But 
whether  it  be  vindicated,  or  wheter  it  be  not,  I  care 
not.  It  is  not  the  duty  of  a  Senator  to  inquire  what 
the  policy  of  an  administration  may  be,  but  what  it 
ought  to  be;  and  I  hope  that  a  Republican  Senate  will 
say  that  on  this  point  there  shall  be  no  authority  in 
this  land  large  enough  or  adventurous  enough  to  com- 
promise the  honor  of  the  national  administration  or 
the  good  name  of  the  great  Republican  party  that 
called  that  administration  into  existence.— Proceedings 
Senate,  March  6, 1S77. 

In  connection  with  the  exclusion -of  the  Chi- 
nese from  the  United  States,  Blaine  said: 

.  .  .  We  have  on  this  day  to  choose  whether  we 
shall  have  for  the  Pacific  Coast  the  civilization  of 
Christ  or  the  civilization  of  Confucius. 

The  allegation  that  the  exclusion  of  the  Chinese  is 
inhumane  and  unchristian  need  not  be  considered  in 
presence  of  the  fact  that  their  admission  to  the  coun- 
try provokes  conflict  which  the  laws  are  unable  to 
restrain. 

The  wealthy  classes  in  a  republic  where  suffrage  is 
universal  cannot  safely  legislate  for  cheap  labor. 

Nowhere  on  earth  has  free  labor  been  brought  in 
competition  with  any  form  of  servile  labor  in  which 
the  free  labor  did  not  come  down  to  the  level  of  the 
servile  labor.  .  .  .  The  lower  strata  pull  down  the 
upper.     The  upper  never  elevate  the  lower. 

I  feel  that  I  am  pleading  the  cause  of  the  free  Amer- 
ican laborer,  and  of  his  children,  and  of  his  children's 
Children,  the  cause  of  "the  house  against  the  hovel,  of 


JAMES   G.    BLAINE.  227 

the  comfort  of  the  freeman  against  the  squalor  of  the 
slave.     .     .     .     Life,  p.  450. 

Do  we  see  the  politician  or  the  statesman  in 
the  following  extract? 

I  received  your  friendly  letter  with  much  pleasure. 
Let  me  say  in  reply,  that  the  course  of  yourself  and 
other  Irish  voters  is  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  an- 
omalies in  our  political  history.  Never,  probably,  since 
the  execution  of  Robert  Emmett,  has  the  feeling  of 
Irishmen,  the  world  over  been  so  bitter  against  Eng- 
land and  Englishmen  as  it  is  at  this  hour;  and  yet  the 
great  mass  of  the  Irish  voters  in  the  United  States  will 
on  Tuesday  next,  vote  precisely  as  Englishmen  would 
have  them  vote— for  the  interests  of  England. 

Having  seen  Ireland  reduced  to  misery  and  driven  to 
despair  by  what  they  regard  as  the  unjust  policy  of 
England,  the  Irishmen  of  America  use  their  suffrage  as 
though  they  were  the  agents  and  servants  of  the  Eng- 
lish Tories.  The  Free-traders  of  England  desire  noth- 
ing so  much  as  the  defeat  of  Garfield  and  the  election 
of  Hancock.  They  wish  to  break  down  the  protective 
tariff  and  cripple  our  manufacturers,  and  nine-tenths 
of  the  Irish  voters  in  this  country  respond  with  alac- 
rity, "  Yes,  we  will  do  your  bidding  and  vote  to  please 
you,  even  though  it  reduce  our  own  wages  and  take 
the  bread  from  the  mouths  of  our  children." 

There  are  many  able  men  and  many  clever  writers 
among  the  Irish  in  America,  but  I  have  never  met  any 
one  of  them  able  enough  or  clever  enough  to  explain 
this  anomaly  on  any  basis  of  logic  and  good  sense. 

I  am  glad  to  see  from  your  esteemed  favor  that  the 
subject  is  beginning  to  trouble  you.  The  more  you 
think  of  it  the  more  you  will  be  troubled,  I  am  sure. 
And  you  will  be  driven  finally  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  prosperity  of  the  Irish  in  this  country  depends  as 
largely  as  that  of  any  other  class  upon  the  maintenance 
of  the  financial  and  industrial  policy  represented  by  the 
Republican  party.  —Letter  in  "Bangor  Whig  and  Cour- 
ier," October  29,  1880. 

Blaine  writes  to  Garfield,  after  the  election 
of  the  latter  to  the  presidency,  as  follows,  De- 


223  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

cember  10,  1S80;  and  following  dates,  till  Feb- 
ruary 16,  1881: 

But  the  Grant  forces  were  never  more  busy  than  at 
this  hour.  .  .  Of  course  it  would  not  be  wise  to 
make  war  on  them.  Indeed,  that  would  be  folly. 
They  must  not  be  knocked  down  with  bludgeons:  they 
must  have  their  throats  cut  with  a  feather.  .  .  The 
Republican  party  of  this  country  is  divided  into  three 
sections.  First,  the  great  body  of  the  North,  with 
Congressional  representation  and  electoral  strength 
behind  it,  is  with  the  section  which  for  convenience  of 
designation  I  will  call  the  Blaine  section,— I  mean  the 
strength  behind  me  in  two  national  conventions.     .     . 

The  secoi  d  section  is  the  Grant  section,  taking  all 
the  South  practically,  with  the  machine  in  New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  and  Illinois— and  having  the  aim  of  rule 
or  ruin  leaders.  .  .  I  think  I  am  not  wrong  in  say- 
ing that  this  section  contains  all  the  desperate  bad 
men  of  the  party,  bent  on  lo<>t  and  booty,  and  ready  for 
any  Mexican  invasion  or  Caribbean  annexation  and 
looking  to  excitements  and  fillibustering  and  possibly 
to  a  Spanish  war  as  legitimate  means  of  continuing  po- 
etical power  for  a  cli  que.  These  men  are  to  be  handled 
with  skill,  always  remembering  that  they  are  harmless 
when  out  of  power,  and  desperate  when  in  possession 
of  it. 

The  third  section  is  the  Reformers  by  profession,  the 
"unco  good."  They  are  to  be  treated  with  respect,  but 
they  are  the  worst  possible  political  advisers— upstarts, 
conceited,  foolish,  vain,  without  knowledge  of  meas- 
ures, ignorant  of  men,  shouting  a  shibboleth  which 
represents  nothing  of  practical  reform  that  you  are  not 
a  thousand  times  pledged  to.  They  are  noisy,  but  not 
numerous,  pharisaical  but  not  practical,  ambitious  but 
not  wise,  pretentious  but  not  powerful!  They  can  be 
easily  dealt  with,  and  can  be  hitched,  to  your  adminis- 
tration with  ease.  I  could  handle  them  myself  with- 
out trouble.     You  can  do  it  more  easily  still. 

In  this  threefold  division  of  the  Republican  party, 
your  true  friends  will  be  found  on  the  first.     . 

In  the  sscond  section  will  be  found  all  the  men  who 
have  an  ulterior  purpose,  who  accept  your  administra- 
tion because  they  cannot  help  it,  and  are  looking  as 


JAMES   G.    BLAINE.  229 

longingly  to  a  restoration  of  Grant  as  the  cavaliers  of 
England,  in  the  time  of  the  Protector,  looked  for  a  re- 
turn of  the  Stuarts. 

The  third  section  can  be  made  to  co-operabe  harmon- 
iously with  the  first,  but  never  with  the  second,— you 
can  see  that  at  a  glance. 

I  have  written  at  immoderate  and  immodest  length : 
my  pen  ran  away  from  me.     .     . 

In  accepting  this  important  post  I  shall  give  all  that 
I  am  and  all  that  I  can  hope  to  be  freely  and  joyfully 
to  your  service.  You  need  no  pledge  of  my  loyalty 
both  in  heart  and  act.  I  should  be  false  to  myself  did 
I  not  prove  true  to  the  great  trust  you  confide  to  me 
and  to  your  own  personal  and  political  fortunes  in  the 
present  and  in  the  future. 

Your  administration  must  be  made  brilliantly  suc- 
cessful and  strong  in  the  confidence  and  pride  of  the 
people;  not  obviously  directing  its  energies  to  re-elec 
tion,  but  compelling  that  result  by  the  logic  of  events 
and  by  the  imperious  necessities  of  the  situation.     .     . 

It  is  this  fact  which  has  led  me  to  the  momentous 
conclusion  embodied  in  this  letter,— for  however  much 
I  might  admire  you  as  a  statesmen,  I  would  not  enter 
your  Cabinet  if  I  did  not  believe  in  you  as  a  man  and 
love  you  as  a  friend. 

It  would  be  personally  unpleasant  and  politically 
disastrous  to  have  him  [Conkling]  in  Cabinet  associa- 
tion. ...  No  Cabinet  could  get  along  with  him, 
nor  could  the  President  himself.  ...  He  would 
insult  everybody  having  business  with  his  Department 
whom  he  did  not  happen  to  like,  and  he  really  happens 
to  dislike  about  ninety-nine  in  every  hundred  of  his 
acquaintances.  .  .  .  Conkling  is  bound  to  go  with 
you  anyway  if  your  treatment  of  him  be  decent  and 
honorable,  and  you  will  never  deal  otherwise  with 
him.  .  .  .  You  can  always  trust  a  man  not  to  saw 
off  the  limb  of  a  tree  when  he  is  on  the  other  end. 

.  I  want  you  to  remember  that  you  are  elected 
President  of  the  United  States,  that  the  power  of  the 
Executive  is  lodged  in  your  hmds,  and  that  you  have 
all  the  power  and  rights  and  are  bound  to  assert  and 
maintain  all  the  dignity  and  independence  of  the  great 
office.     All  I  fear  is  that  your  instinctive  generosity 


230  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

will  carry  you  beyond  the  limits  of  fair  justice  to 
yourself,  and  that  you  will  err  on  that  side.  I  say  this 
because  I  do  not  want  you  to  trust  the  great  patronage 
departments  where  there  is  the  remotest  danger  of 
their  being  used  adversely  to  your  personal  interests. 
.  I  disclaim  all  and  every  effort  to  force  or  at- 
tempt to  force  anybody  on  you,  but  I  am  awfully  anx- 
ious that  you  shall  have  a  true  friend  in  the  treasury. 
.  .  .  I  think  a  Western  man  at  the  head  of  the 
treasury  is  a  sine  qua  non  for  your  success.  ...  1 
beg  you  to  keep  your  thoughts  in  that  direction. 
.  I  assume  that  you  will  give  one  place  to  New  Eng- 
land, one  place  to  New  York,  one  place  to  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  one  to  the  South.  This  leaves  you  only 
three  for  the  great  West,  extending  from  the  base  of 
the  Alleghanies  to  the  foot-hills  of  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tains. .  .  .  The  last  two  Southern  Cabinet  mem- 
bers came  from  Tennessee.  Would  it  not  be  better  to 
seek  a  representative  from  another  State?  The  more  I 
turn  the  subject  over  "upside  down  and  t'other  end 
to,"  the  more  I  come  to  the  conclusion  that  Wayne 
MacVeagh  on  the  whole  is  the  stronghold  for  Pennsyl- 
vania and  for  the  Reformers.  There  is  no  other  Cabi- 
net stone  in  your  hand  that  will  kill  so  many  political 
dogs  at  one  throw.  I  guess  you'd  better  fire  it. — Life, 
pp.  490,  491,  494,  497,  501,  502. 

Expansion,  in  connection  with  Cuba,  Hawaii, 
etc. 

The  policy  of  this  country  with  regard  to  the  Pacific 
is  the  natural  complement  to  its  Atlantic  policy.  The 
history  of  our  European  relations  for  fity  years  shows 
the  jealous  concern  with  which  the  United  States  has 
guarded  its  control  of  the  coast  from  foreign  interfer- 
ence. Its  attitude  toward  Cuba  is  in  point.  That  rich 
island,  the  key  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  is,  though  in 
the  hands  of  Spain,  a  part  of  the  American  commer- 
cial system.  My  predecessor,  Mr.  Secretary  Everett, 
showed  that,  without  forcing  or  even  coveting  posses- 
sion i)f  the  island,  its  condition  was  essentially  an 
American  question ;  that  if  ever  ceasing  to  be  Spanish, 
Cuba  must  necessarily  become  American,  and  not  fall 
under  any  other  European  domination,  and  that  the 
ceaseless  movement  of  segregation  of  American  inter- 


JAMES   G.    BLAINE.  231 

ests  from  European  control,  and  unification  in  a 
broader  American  sphere  of  independent  life,  could 
not  and  should  not  be  checked.  The  material  posses- 
sion of  Hawaii  is  not  desired  by  the  United  States  any 
mere  than  was  that  of  Cuba.  But  under  no  circum- 
stances can  the  United  States  permit  any  change  in 
the  territorial  control  of  either  which  would  cut  it 
adrift  from  the  American  system,  whereto  they  both 
indispensably  belong,  by  the  operation  of  natural  laws, 
and  must  belong  by  the  operation  of  political  necessity. 
—Life,  pp.  511,  512. 

At  the  close  of  his  campaign  for  the  presi- 
dency in  1884,  he  said: 

I  am  not  speaking  for  myself.  No  man  ever  met 
with  a  misfortune  in  being  defeated  for  the  presidency, 
while  men  have  met  great  misfortunes  in  being  elected 
to  it-  .  .  .  I  am  pleading  the  cause  of  the  Amer- 
ican people.  I  am  pleading  the  cause  of  the  American 
farmer,  the  American  manufacturer,  the  American 
mechanic,  and  the  American  laborer  against  the  world. 
I  am  reproached  by  some  excellent  people  for  appear- 
ing before  these  multitudes  of  my  countrymen  upon 
the  ground  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  dignity  of 
the  office  for  which  I  am  named.  I  do  not  feel  it  to  be 
so.  I  know  no  reason  why  I  should  not  face  the  Amer- 
ican people  ...  I  close  this  canvass,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, with  a  profound  conviction  that,  intelligent  as 
the  voters  of  the  United  States  are,  accustomed  as  they 
are  to  give  heed  to  the  weight  and  tendency  of  the 
questions  to  be  decided,  the  people  of  the  United 
States  have  not  yet  measured,  nor,  as  I  believe,  yet 
fully  comprehended,  what  it  would  mean  to  transfer 
this  government  to  the  absolute  control  of  the  South- 
ern States  of  this  Union.  ...  I  here  now  repeat, 
that  to  transfer  the  political  power  of  the  country  to 
the  Democratic  party  at  this  time  would  by  no  means 
be  one  of  those  ordinary  transfers  of  the  government 
from  on  3  party  to  another  which  the  gray-haired  men 
within  my  view  witnessed  more  than  once  in  the  last 
generation.  It  would  not  be  merely  an  instance  of 
one  party  going  out  and  another  coming  in  It  would 
be  rather  a  reversal  and  overturning  of  the  industrial 
systems  of  the  government,  of  the  financial  systems  of 


232  AMERICAN    iiistm:      studies. 

the  government;  in  short,  a  transfer  of  the  sovereignty 
of  the  country,  of  far  greater  consequence  than  the 
ordinary  changes  of  dynasty  which  occur  in  European 
governments  of  a  different  form  from  ours.— Life,  pp. 
579,  583. 

While  secretary  of  state  under  President  Har- 
rison, he  had  occasion  to  discuss  the  question  of 
the  seal  in  the  Behring  Sea.     In  part  he  said: 

Whence  did  the  ships  of  Canada  derive  the  right  to 
do.  in  1886,  that  which  they  refrained  from  doing  for 
nearly  ninety  years.  ? 

Upon  what  grounds  did  Her  Majesty's  government 
defend,  in  the  year  1886  a  course  of  conduct  in  the 
Behring  Sea  which  had  been  carefully  avoided  ever 
since  the  discovery  of  that  sea? 

By  what  reasoning  did  Her  Majesty's  government 
conclude  that  an  act  may  be  committed  with  impunity 
against  the  rights  of  the  United  States  which  had 
never  been  attempted  against  the  same  rights,  when 
held  by  the  Russian  Empire.     .     .     . 

To  the  President  he  wrote: 

If  we  get  up  a  war-cry  and  send  naval  vessels  to 
Behring  Sea  it  will  re-elect  Lord  Salisbury.  England 
always  sustains  an  administration  with  the  prospect  of 
war  pending.  Lord  Salisbury  would  dissolve  Parlia- 
ment instantly  if  we  made  a  demonstration  of  war. 
On  the  other  side  I  am  not  sure  -  or  rather  I  am  sure  — 
that  war  would  prove  of  no  advantage  to  you.  New 
York  and  Massachusetts  are  steadily  against  war  with 
England  unless  the  last  point  of  honor  requires  it. 
Again,  I  think  you  will  bitterly  disappoint  Lord  Salis- 
bury by  keeping  quiet.  We  would  have  all  the  fuss 
and  there  would  be  no  war  after  all.  Not  a  man  in  a 
million  believes  we  should  ultimately  have  war.— Life, 
pp.  667,  671. 

To  the  delegates  to  the  Pan-American  con- 
gress, in  opening  the  session,  he  said,  in  part: 

Gentlemen  of  the  International  American  Confer- 
ence: Speaking  for  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  I  bid  you  welcome  to  this  Capital  Speak  ng 
for  the  people  of  the  United  States,  I  bid  you  welcome 
to  every  section  and  to  every  State  of  the  Union.     You 


JAMES    G.     BLAINE.  233 

come  in  response  to  an  invitation  extended  by  the 
President  on  the  special  authorization  of  Congress. 
Your  presence  here  is  no  ordinary  event.  It  signifies 
much  to  the  people  of  all  America  to-day.  It  ma}7  sig- 
nify far  more  in  the  days  to  come.  No  Conference  of 
nations  ha*  ever  assembled  to  consider  the  welfare  of 
territorial  possessions  so  vast  and  to  contemplate  the 
possibilities  of  a  future  so  great  and  so  inspiring.     . 

The  aggregate  territorial  extent  of  the  nations  here 
represented  falls  but  little  short  of  12,000,  00  of  square 
miles— more  than  three  times  the  area  of  all  Europe, 
and  but  little  less  than  one-fourth  part  of  the  globe; 
while  in  respect  to  the  power  of  producing  the  articles 
which  are  essential  to  human  life,  and  those  which 
minister  to  life's  luxury,  they  constitute  even  a  larger 
proportion  of  the  entire  world.  Those  great  pos3es- 
sions  to-day  have  an  aggregate  population  approaching 
120,000,000,  but  if  peopled  as  densely  as  the  average  of 
Europe,  the  total  number  would  exceed  1,000,000,000. 

The  delegates  I  am  addressing  can  do  much  to  es- 
tablish permanent  relations  of  confidence,  respect,  and 
friendship  between  the  nations  which  they  represent. 
They  can  show  to  the  world  an  honorable,  peaceful 
conference  of  eighteen  independent  American  Powers, 
in  which  all  shall  meet  together  on  terms  of  absolute 
equality;  a  conference  in  which  there  can  be  no  at- 
tempt to  coerce  a  single  delegate  against  his  own  con- 
ception of  the  interest  of  his  nation;  a  conference 
which  will  permit  no  secret  understanding  on  any  sub- 
ject, but  will  frankly  publish  to  the  world  all  its  con- 
clusions; a  conference  which  will  tolerate  no  spirit  of 
conquest,  but  will  aim  to  cultivate  an  American  sym- 
pathy as  broad  as  both  continents.     .     .     . 

We  believe  that  hearty  co-operation,  based  on  hearty 
confidence,  will  save  all  American  states  from  the  bur- 
dens and  evils  which  have  long  and  cruelly  afflicted  the 
older  nations  of  the  world. 

We  believe  that  a  spirit  of  justice,  of  common  and 
equal  interest  between  the  American  states,  will  leave 
no  room  for  an  artificial  balance  of  power  like  unto 
that  which  has  led  to  wars  abroad  and  drenched  Europe 
in  blood. 


234  AMERICAN  HISTORY  STUDIES. 

We  believe  that  friendship,  avowed  with  candor  and 
maintained  witk  good  faith,  will  remove  from  Amer- 
ican states  the  necessity  of  guarding  boundary  lines 
between  themselves  with  fortifications  and  military 
force. 

We  believe  that  standing  armies,  beyond  those  which 
are  needful  for  public  order  and  the  safety  of  internal 
administration,  should  be  unknown  on  both  the  Amer- 
ican continents. 

We  believe  that  friendship  and  not  force,  the  spirit 
of  just  law  and  not  the  violence  of  the  mob,  should 
be  the  recognized  rule  of  administration  between 
American  nations  and  in  American  nations.     .     .     . 

In  closing  he  said: 

The  extent  and  value  of  all  that  has  been  worthily 
achieved  by  yonr  Conference  cannot  be  measured  to- 
day. We  stand  too  near  it.  Time  will  define  and 
heighten  the  estimate  of  your  work;  experience  will 
confirm  our  present  faith;  final  results  will  be  your 
vindication  and  your  triumph. 

If,  in  this  closing  hour,  the  Conference  had  but  one 
deed  to  celebrate,  we  should  dare  call  the  world's  at- 
tention to  the  deliberate,  confident,  solemn  dedication 
of  two  great  Continents  to  Peace  and  to  the  prosperity 
which  has  Peace  for  its  foundation.  We  hold  up  this 
new  Magna  Charta,  which  abolishes  war  and  substi- 
tutes Arbitration  between  the  American  Republics,  as 
the  first  and  great  fruit  of  the  International  American 
Conference.  That  noblest  of  Americans,  the  aged 
poet  and  philanthropist  Whittier,  is  the  first  to  send 
his  salutation  and  his  benediction,  declaring:  "If  in 
the  spirit  of  peace  the  American  Conference  agrees 
upon  a  rule  of  Arbitration  which  shall  make  war  in 
this  hemisphere  well-nigh  impossible,  its  sessions  will 
prove  one  of  the  most  important  events  in  the  history 
of  the  world.—  Life,  pp.  677,  678,  679,  681. 

Blaine's  views  in  regard  to  his  plan  of  reci- 
procity, and  the  relation  of  the  McKinley  bill 
of  1890  to  it,  may  be  seen  in  these  extracts: 

Fifteen  of  the  seventeen  republics  with  which  we 
have  been  in  conference  have  indicated,  by  the  votes 
of  their  representatives  in  the  International  American 


JAMES   G.    BLAINE.  235 

Conference,  and  by  other  methods  which  it  is  not  nec- 
essary to  define,  their  desire  to  enter  upon  reciprocal 
commercial  relations  with  the  United  States;  the  re- 
maining two  express  equal  willingness,  could  they  be 
assured  that  their  advances  would  be  favorably  con- 
sidered. 

To  escape  the  delay  and  uncertainty  of  treaties,  it 
has  been  suggested  that  a  practicable  and  prompt  mode 
of  testing  the  question  was  to  submit  an  amendment  to 
the  pending  tariff  bill,  authorizing  the  President  to  de- 
clare the  ports  of  the  United  States  free  to  all  the  pro- 
ducts of  any  nation  of  the  American  hemisphere  upon 
which  no  export  duties  are  imposed,  whenever  and  so 
long  as  such  nation  shall  admit  to  its  ports  free  of  all 
national,  provincial  (State),  municipal,  and  other  taxes 
our  flour,  cornmeal,  and  other  bread-stuff,  preserved 
meats,  fish,  vegetables,  and  fruits,  cotton-seed  oil,  rice, 
and  other  provisions,  including  all  articles  of  food, 
lumber,  furniture  and  other  articles  of  wood,  agricul- 
tural implements  and  machinery,  mining  and  mechan- 
ical machinery,  structural  steel  and  iron,  steel  rails, 
locomotives,  railway  cars  and  supplies,  street  cars,  and 
refined  petroleum.  I  mention  these  particular  articles 
because  they  have  been  most  frequently  referred  to  as 
those  with  which  a  valuable  exchange  could  be  readily 
effected.  The  list  could  no  doubt  be  profitably  enlarged 
by  a  careful  investigation  of  the  needs  and  advantages 
of  both  the  home  and  foreign  markets.     .     . 

I  do  not  doubt  that  in  many  respects  the  tariff  bill 
pending  in  the  Senate  is  a  just  measure,  and  that  most 
of  its  provisions  are  in  accordance  with  the  wise  policy 
of  protection.  But  there  is  not  a  section  nor  a  line  in 
the  entire  bill  that  will  open  a  market  for  another 
bushel  of  wheat  or  another  barrel  of  pork.  If  sugar  is 
now  placed  on  the  free  list  without  exacting  important 
trade  concessions  in  return,  we  shall  close  the  door  for 
a  profitable  reciprocity  against  ourselves.  I  think  you 
will  find  some  valuable  hints  on  this  subject  in  the 
President's  brief  message  of  June  19,  with  as  much 
practical  wisdom  as  was  ever  stated  in  so  short  a  space. 
Our  foreign  markets  for  breadstuffs  grows  narrower. 
Great  Britain  is  exerting  every  nerve  to  secure  her 
bread  supplies  from  India,  and  the  rapid  expansion  of 
the  wheat  area  in  Russia  gives  us  a  powerful  compet- 
16 


236  AMERICAN   niSTORY   STUDIES. 

itor  in  the  markets  of  Europe.  It  becomes  us  therefore 
to  use  every  opportunity  for  the  extension  of  our  mar- 
ket on  both  of  the  American  continents.  With  nearly 
one  hundred  million  dollars'  worth  of  sugar  seeking 
our  market  every  year,  we  shall  prove  ourselves  most 
unskilled  legislators  if  we  do  not  secure  a  large  field 
for  the  sale  and  consumption  of  our  breadstuffs  and 
provisions.  The  late  conference  of  American  republics 
proved  the  existence  of  a  common  desire  for  closer  re- 
lations. Our  Congress  should  take  up  the  work  where 
the  International  Conference  left  it.  Our  field  of  com- 
mercial development  and  progress  lies  south  of  us. — 
Life,  pp.  684,  686,  687. 

Again,  regarding  expansion,  into  the  islands 
of  the  sea: 

In  regard  to  the  purchase  of  the  Danish  colonies,  St. 
George  and  St.  Lucia,  my  prepossessions  are  all  against 
it  until  we  are  by  fate  in  possession  of  the  larger  West 
Indies.  They  are  very  small,  of  no  great  commercial 
value,  and  in  case  of  war  would  require  us  to  defend 
them,  and  to  defend  them  at  a  great  cost.  At  the  same 
time  they  lack  strategic  value.  They  are  destined  to 
become  ours,  but  among  the  last  of  the  West  Indies 
that  will  be  taken.     .     .     . 

I  think  there  are  only  three  places  that  are  of  value 
enough  to  bo  caken  that  are  not  continental.  One  is 
Hawaii,  and  the  others  are  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico  Cuba 
and  Porto  Rico  are  not  imminent,  and  will  not  be  for 
a  generation.  Hawaii  may  come  up  for  decision  at  any 
unexpected  hour,  and  I  hope  we  shall  be  prepared  to 
decide  it  in  the  affirmative. — Life,  p.  692. 

Concerning  reciprocity  with  Canada  Septem- 
ber 23,  1891,  Blaine  wrote  to  President  Har- 
rison : 

It  is  of  the  highest  possible  importance  in  my  view 
that  there  be  no  treaty  of  reciprocity  (with  Canada,). 

I  think  it  would  be  one  of  the  worst  things  among 
the  farmers  in  a  political  point  of  view  we  could  do, 
and  we  cannot  afford  to  lose  a  vote  now  until  after  the 
presidential  election.  They  have  got  it  into  their 
heads  that  we  did  something  for  them  in  the  McKinley 


JAMES    G.    BLAINE.  237 

tariff,  and  giving  away  natural  products  by  reciprocity 
would  end  the  whole  matter.  It  would  be  considered 
a  betrayal  of  the  agricultural  interests.  The  fact  is  we 
do  not  want  any  intercourse  with  Canada  except 
through  the  medium  of  a  tariff,  and  she  will  find  that 
she  has  a  hard  row  to  hoe  and  will  ultimately.  I  believe, 
seek  admission  to  the  Union. 

The  poor  showing  that  Canada  made  in  the  late  cen- 
sus was  a  revelation  to  the  Canadians  themselves  and 
if  we  do  not  grant  them  reciprocity  they  will  make  a 
poorer  showing  ten  years  hence.  We  are  tending  to 
have  the  great  majority  of  the  farmers  with  us.  Let 
us  encourage  them  by  every  means  we  can  use  and  not 
discourage  them  by  anything.  We  will  break  the  al- 
liance before  six  months  if  we  steadily  maintain  this 
policy.— Life,  pp.  693,  69  k. 

QUESTIONS 

(1)  Blaine's  characteristics  as  a  young  man.  (2) 
What  was  his  standing  as  a  student?  (3)  What  was 
his  first  occupation?  (4)  Trace  his  changes  of  resi- 
dence. (5)  Did  he  have  early  political  aspirations?  (6) 
To  what  parties  did  he  belong?  (7)  What  did  he  think 
of  military  men  as  presidential  candidates?  (8j  What 
was  his  first  national  political  work?  (9)  When  did  he 
begin  his  congressional  career?  (10)  How  did  he  stand 
toward  Lincoln's  administration? 

(1)  What  amendment  in  regard  to  finances  did  he 
wish  to  have  made  to  the  constitution?  (2)  What  pre- 
diction did  he  make  in  regard  to  governmental  reven- 
ues? (3)  What  his  views  in  regard  to  a  standing  army? 
(4)  Outline  his  view 3  regarding  the  questions  that  arose 
in  connection  with  the  election  of  1876. 

(1)  What  do  you  think  of  his  argument  to  the  Irish 
voters?  (2)  Was  his  letter  to  Garfield  in  1881  that  of  a 
skilled  politician?  (3)  Dees  history  justify  his  posi- 
tions? (4)  Is  it  an  egotistical  letter?  (5)  What  his  per- 
sonal feelings  toward  Conkling?  (6)  What  advice  does 
he  give  Garfield?  (7)  Was  it  wise?  (8)  Bring  together 
all  he  said  on  expansion.  (9)  What  conclusion  in  re- 
gard to  his  position  on  the  subject?  What  position  did 
he  take  in  regard  to  a  presidential  candidate  taking 
part  in  a  campaign  ? 

(1)  Outline  Blaine's  position  and  arguments  in  re- 
gard to  tb.s  seal  fisheries  and  the  Behring  Sea  discussion. 
(2)  What;  plans  did  he  have  in  regard  to  our  relations 
to  the  South  American  countries?  (3)  What  did  he 
think  of  the  tariff  bill  of  1890?  (4)  What  relations  in 
his  judgment  should  prevail  between  Canada  and  the 
United  States. 


238  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 


(1)  Compare  Blaine  and  Clay.  (2)  Note  changes  in 
character  of  questions  discussed  by  Adams,  for  exam- 
ple, and  Blaine.  1 3)  Compare  the  two  men.  (4) 
Judge  by  the  extracts  given,  what  man  do  you  con- 
sider the  greatest?  (5)  Which  do  you  admire  most? 
(6)  Which  was  the  greatest  orator?  (7i  Which  the 
ablest  statesman?    (8)  Which  the  purest   statesman? 


CHEONOLOGY 

1492.  Discovery  of  America. 

1497.  The  Cabots  on  the  coast  of  North  America. 

1513.  Florida    discovered.      The   Pacific    Ocean    first 

seen. 
1519-22.  First  circumnavigation   of  the  world. 
1519-21.  The  Mississippi  discovered  by  De  Soto. 
1565.  Florida  settled  by  Spaniards. 
1584-87.  Sir   Walter   Raleigh's   attempt  at   coloniza- 
tion. 

1607.  Jamestown  settled.     Captain  John  Smith. 

1608.  Quebec  founded  by  French. 

1609.  Hudson  river  discovered  by  Dutch. 

1619.  House   of   Burgesses.     Slaves  introduced  into 

Virginia. 

1620.  Pilgrims  land   at  Plvmouth. 
1630.  Boston  founded. 

1634.  Maryland  settled.     Religious  toleration. 
1636.  Harvard     college     founded.      Roger     Williams 
settles  Rhode  Island.     Pequod  war. 

1638.  New  Haven  founded;  Swedes  settled  Delaware. 

1639.  First  written  Constitution — "Fundamental  Or- 

ders" of  Connecticut. 
1643.  New  England  Confederacy. 
1656-61.  Persecution    of    Quakers    in    Massachusetts. 

1664.  New  York  captured  by  the  English. 

1665.  English  settle  New  Jersey. 

1675.  King  Philip's  war. 

1676.  Bacon's  rebellion. 

1682.  Pennsylvania  founded  by  Penn. 

1691.  Massachusetts    New     Charter.       Leisler     exe- 

cuted. 

1692.  William    and    Mary    College   founded.      Witch- 

craft delusion. 

1701.  Yale  College  founded. 

1704.  Boston  News  Letter— First  American  newspa- 
per. 

1718.  New  Orleans  founded  by  the  French. 

1733.  Oglethorpe  founds  Savannah,  Ga. 

1746.  College   of  New  Jersey,   Princeton   founded. 

1749.  University  of  Pennsylvania  founded. 

1754.  Albany   convention. 

1754-63.  French  and  Indian  war. 

1759.  Wolfe  takes  Quebec. 

1763.  Peace  of  Paris;  Canada  gained  by  English. 
Mason  and  Dixon's  Line. 


240  CHRONOLOGY 

1765.  Stamp  Act  Congress;   Patrick  Henry's  resolu- 

tions; "Sons  of  Liberty." 

1766.  Repeal  of  Stamp  Act;   The  Declaratory  Act. 

1767.  Townshend  Revenue  Act;  Dickinson's  Farmer's 

Letter:,. 

1768.  British  Troops  in  Boston. 

1770.  Repeal   Townshend    Act.      "Boston   Massacre." 

1771.  Tryon's  war  in  North  Carolina. 

1772.  The  "Gaspee"  burned;    Committees  of  Corres- 

pondence in  Massachusetts. 

1773.  Boston    "Tea   Party;"    Intercolonial     Commit- 

tees of  Correspondence. 

1774.  Boston  Port  Bill;   Massachusetts  Charter  Bill; 

Quartering  Troops;  Quebec  Act;  First  Con- 
tinental Congress. 

1775.  War  begins;  Lexington;  Ticonderoga.     Second 

Continental  Congress.  Washington,  Com- 
mander-in-Chief;   Bunker  Hill. 

1776.  Declaration   of   Independence;    Boston    evacu- 

ated; Americans  defeated  at  New  York  and 
in  New  Jersey;  Trenton;  "Common  Sense" 
by  Thos.  Paine. 

1777.  Surrender  of  Lurgoyne;  Articles  of  Confedera- 

tion sent  to  the  States;   "Valley  Forge." 

1778.  France    makes    treaty    with    States.     George 

Rogers  Clark  in  Illinois,  etc. 

1779.  War  in  South. 

1780.  War  in  South;   Arnold's  treason;   Andre;   Gen. 

Green. 

1781.  Cornwallis  surrenders.     Robert  Morris  head  of 

finances.  Confederacy  completed.  Bank  of 
North  America. 

1783.  Treaty  of  peace. 

1784.  First  Ordinance  for  Northwest  Territory. 

1785.  Maryland  and  Virginia  Commissions  meet. 

1786.  Annapolis  Convention. 

1787.  Constitutional     Convention.        "Ordinance     of 

1787." 

1788.  Constitution  ratified  by  ten  states. 

1789.  Government   under   the   new   Constitution   be- 

gam;  Washingtcn  President.  North  Carolina 
ratifies  the  Constitution. 

1790.  Rhode  Island  accepts  the  Constitution. 

1791.  Ten    Amendments   adopted.      Bank   chartered. 

Parties  formed.  Kentucky  a  State.  As- 
sumption. 

1792.  Columbia   river   discovered.      French   Republic 

established.     Vermont  a  State. 

1793.  Genet  and   neutrality.     Cotton   gin.     Fugitive 

Slave  Law. 

1794.  Whiskey  Insurrection.     Jay's  Treaty. 

1795.  Excitement     over    Jay    Treaty;    Treaty   with 

Spain. 


CHRONOLOGY  241 

1796.  "Posts"  delivered.    Washington's  Farewell  Ad- 

dress.    Tennessee  a  State. 

1797.  John  Adams   President. 

1798.  X.    Y.    Z.    affair;    Alien   Laws;    Sedition   Law; 

Virginia  and  Kentucky  Resolutions. 

1799.  Kentucky  Resolutions.    Army  Intrigue.    Wash 

ing'ton  dies. 

1800.  Treaty    with    France.      Washington    City    be- 

comes  the   Capitol.     Jefferson-Burr  contest. 

1801.  Jefferson  President. 

1802.  Ohio  a  State. 

1803.  Louisiana  purchase. 

1504.  Lewis  and  Clark  expedition.    XII  Amendment. 
1805-6.  The   Burr  Conspiracy. 

1806.  Orders  in   Council.     Berlin  Decree. 

1807.  "Chesapeake"    and    "Leopard."     Embargo. 

1505.  Slave  trade  illegal. 

1809.  Non-Intercourse     substituted     for     Embargo. 

Madison  President. 

1810.  "Macon  Bill  No.  I." 

1811.  "Tippecanoe." 

1812.  WTar  declared.     Louisiana  a  State. 

1813.  War;    Perry's  Victory. 

1814.  The       Hartford       Convention.         Washington 

burned.     Treaty  of  Peace  signed. 

1815.  January     4,     the     Hartford     Convention     ad- 

journed. January  8,  Jackson's  victory  at 
New  Orleans.  Unitarian  secession  from  Con- 
gregational Church. 

1816.  Second    National    Bank    chartered.    Dallas'    re- 

port on  manufactures.  Tariff  act  passed; 
generally  regarded  as  the  first  protective 
tariff.  American  "Colonization  Society" 
founded.  Caucus  system  for  nominating 
presidential  candidates  breaking  down. 
National  debt,  $127,335,000.  Calhoun's  "bank 
bonus  bill"  for  internal  improvements  intro- 
duced. Monroe  elected  President  and  Tomp- 
kins Vice-President,  by  183  electoral  votes, 
to  34  for  King.    Indiana  admitted  as  a  state. 

1817.  Monroe's  tour  through  New  England  and  the 

West.  All  internal  taxes  repealed.  Specie 
payments  resumed.  The  Seminole  War  in 
Florida  begins.  Madison  vetoes  an  internal 
improvement  bill.  Mississippi  admitted  as 
a  state.  The  "Savannah"  the  first  steamship 
to  cross  the  Atlantic. 
1817-20.  Old  party  names  pass  out  of  use.  Local 
issues  take  the  place  of  national.  Specula- 
tion, followed  by  the  first  great  crisis. 

1818.  Connecticut  adopts  a  new  constitution.    Jack- 

son invades  Florida.  Hangs  Ambrister  and 
Arbuthnot;   thus  involves  the  United  State* 


242  CHRONOLOGY 

with  England.  Clay  attacks  Jackson  in 
Congress.  Increase  of  tariff  on  iron.  Treaty 
with  Great  Britain.  Fisheries,  boundary, 
Oregon  and  commercial  questions  provided 
for.     Illinois  admitted  as  a  state. 

1819.  Florida     bought    from    Spain    for    $5,000,000. 

Struggle  over  the  admission  of  Missouri  be- 
gins. Arkansas  organized  as  a  Territory, 
with  slavery.  The  crisis  of  1819-21  begins. 
The  National  bank  investigated.  Specie  pay- 
ments again  suspended,  except  in  New  Eng- 
land. The  Supreme  Court  in  McCullough 
vs.  Maryland  decides  the  National  Bank  law 
constitutional.  The  famous  Dartmouth  Col- 
lege case,  and  Webster's  plea;  held  that 
Charters  are  contracts.  An  act  against  the 
slave  trade.  Alabama  admitted  as  a  state. 
University   of   Virginia   chartered. 

1820.  The     slave     trade     declared     piracy.       Liberia 

founded.  The  first  (?)  Missouri  compromise. 
In  Louisiana  territory  slavery  to  be  forbid- 
den north  of  latitude  36°  30'.  Missouri  en- 
abling act  passed.  A  constitution  to  be 
formed  with  or  without  slavery  as  its  peo- 
ple wished.  Monroe  re-elected  President 
and  only  one  opposing  vote.  Maine  admit- 
ted as  a  state.    Population,  U.  S.  9,633,822. 

(1)    Free     States,     5,132,000;      (2)    Slave 
States,  4,522,000. 
Representatives      in      Congress:         (1)    Free 
States,   133;    (2)  Slave  States,   90. 

1821.  The   second    (?)    Missouri   compromise,    Clay's. 

Missouri  admitted  as  a  state.  The  Florida 
treaty  ratified  by  Spain.  New  York  forms 
a  new  constitution;  extends  suffrage.  In- 
trigues for  presidency,  in  1824,  begin. 
Crawford  and  Adams  most  prominent  can- 
didates.    Jackon  governor  of  Florida. 

1822.  Monroe     vetoes     the     Cumberland     road     bill. 

Jackson    comes    forward    as    a    presidential 
candidate. 
1818-22.  The  independence  of  the  Spanish-American 
states  recognized  by  the  United  States. 

1823.  The  so-called  Monroe  doctrine  set  forth.    The 

"Holy  Alliance"  baffled  in  its  American 
plans.  Monroe's  letter  against  the  internal 
improvement  plans  and  ideas  of  the  times. 

1824.  The    tariff    rates    increased;     protection    ex- 

tended. The  great  Webster-Clay  debate 
over  protection.  The  last  Congressional  cau- 
cus to  nominate  presidential  candidates. 
Crawford  nominated  for  President  by  the 
caucus;    Adams,    Clay   and   Jackson   by   the 


CHRONOLOGY  243 

state  legislatures.  Pennsylvania  suggests  a 
national  nominating  convention.  Not  car- 
ried out  till  1831.  Lafayette  visits  Amer- 
ica. No  choice  by  electors  for  president. 
(1)  Jackson,  99;  (2)  Adams,  84;  (3) 
Crawford,  41;    (4)   Clay,  37. 

1825.  In   Congress   Clay's  followers  support  Adams. 

(1)  Adams,  13  states;  (2)  Jackson,  7 
states;  (3)  Crawford,  4  states. 
Cry  of  "bargain  and  sale"  raised.  University 
of  Virginia  opened.  Clay  becomes  Secretary 
of  State.  Adams  urges  internal  improve- 
ments and  a  national  university.  The  Erie 
canal  opened.  Webster's  "Bunker  Hill"  ora- 
tion. The  Panama  Congress.  Clay's  "Hu- 
man Freedom  League"  to  oppose  the  "Holy 
Alliance"   proposed. 

1826.  Duel    between    Clay    and    Kandolph.      Trouble 

with  Creek  Indians  in  Georgia.  July  4,  Ad- 
ams and  Jefferson  die.  American  Temper- 
ance Society  at  Boston. 

1827.  Congress   in    opposition    to    President   Adams. 

Difficulties  with  England  settled  by  Gallatin. 

1828.  Candidates  for  presidency  nominated  by  state 

legislatures  and  mass  conventions.  The 
"tariff  of  abominations."  Webster  this  year, 
for  the  first  time,  supports  protection.  The 
triumph  of  "the  people"  in  the  election  of 
Jackson.  Anti-Mason  excitement.  The  dis- 
appearance of  Morgan.  South  Carolina  dis- 
satisfied with  the  tariff  law. 

1829.  Jackson's   inauguration;    popular     demonstra- 

tion. Jackson  and  Biddle  begin  the  bank 
struggle.  The  "Kitchen  cabinet."  The 
"spoils  system"  introduced  into  national  pol- 
itics. The  real  beginning  of  railroads  in  the 
United  States. 

1830.  The    Maysville    road    veto    by    Jackson.      The 

tariff  bill  modified;  protection  retained. 
Webster-Hayne  debate.  Nullification  doc- 
trine set  forth.  B.  &  O.  railroad  opened. 
Population   12,866,020. 

1831.  Jackson   reorganizes   his   cabinet,    and   breaks 

with  Calhoun.  The  Seminole  controversy. 
The  Nat  Turner  insurrection  in  Virginia. 
Abolition  societies  organized.  The  first  na- 
tional nominating  convention.  Garrison  be- 
gins the  "Liberator." 

1832.  The  bank  veto.     Monopoly  denounced.    Jack- 

son re-elected.  Tariff  act;  again  protection 
sustained.  The  Anti-Masons  enter  national 
politics.  The  first  one-idea  party.  Nullifica- 
tion ordinance  by  South  Carolina.     Jackson 


244  CHRONOLOGY 

issues  his  proclamation  against  nullification. 
Charles  Carroll,  the  last  of  the  signers  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  dies. 

1833.  The    "force    bill".      Clay's     compromise     tariff 

bill.  South  Carolina  withdraws  her  nulli- 
fication act.  The  Webster-Calhoun  debate. 
Jackson  at  his  zenith.  October  1,  "removal 
of  the  deposits."  Clay's  land  distribution 
bill  vetoed.  National  abolition  society  or- 
ganized. 

1834.  "Censure"  of  the  president  by  the  senate.   The 

hard-money  struggle;  Benton.  The  Whig- 
party  formed  and  named.  McCormick's 
reaping  machine  patented. 

1835.  Mob  spirit  everywhere;   especially  against  ab- 

olitionists and  catholics.  National  debt  paid 
off.  The  "loco-focos."  Prudence  Crandall's 
school  for  colored  girls  closed.  Struggle 
over  "incendiary  matter"  in  the  mails.  In- 
dians of  Georgia  removed  to  Indian  Ter- 
ritory. 

1836.  "Gag"   resolutions  in   Congress   against  lecep- 

tion  of  "abolition"  petitions.  J.  Q. .Adams 
begins  his  great  struggle  for  the  ''right  of 
petition."  Bill  for  "distribution  of  the  sur- 
plus" $36,000,000,  among  the  states.  July  4, 
death  of  Madison.  Van  Buren  elected  pres- 
ident. Texas  wins  the  victory  of  San  Jac  nto. 
The  "specie  circular"  issued.  Arkansas  ad- 
mitted as  a  state. 

1837.  The   "expunging  resolutions"  adopted.     Texas 

independence  recognized.  The  United  States 
presses  for  a  settlement  of  her  "cliims" 
against  Mexico.  The  great  crisis  and  panic, 
speculation  collapses.  Van  Buren  for  the 
"independent"  or  "sub-treasury."  E.  P. 
Lovejoy  murdered.  First  proposal  to  annex 
Texas.     Michigan  admitted  as  a  State. 

1838.  Continued  troubles   on  the  Canadian  frontier. 

Smithsonian  Institution  founded. 

1839.  Trouble  in   organizing  the   House.     The   New 

Jersey     seats.       The    "Amistad"    case.      The 

Daguerreotype     first     used     in     the     United 

States. 

1835-42.  Era    of    "isms."      Fourierism,    homoeopathy, 

hydropathy,  the  Graham  diet,  phrenology, 

etc.       Transcendentalism,    Emerson,   Thor- 

eau,  Margaret  Fuller,  Hawthorne,  etc. 

1840.  The   "Tippecanoe    and    Tyler    too"   campaign. 

Election  of  Harrison,  on  "hard  cider  and 
log-cabin  cr3r."  Sub-treasury  act  passed.  The 
Liberty  party  first  appears  in  a  national  con- 
test.    Population,  17,069,453.  ,    ,_.... 


CHRONOLOGY  245 


1830-40.  A  real  American  literature  beginning  to  ap- 
pear. Cheap  newspapers,  the  Sun,  1833; 
the  Herald,  1835;   the  Tribune,  1841,  etc. 

1841.  Utter  collapse  of  the  "Second  National  Bank" 

and  President  Harrison's  death.  Sub-treas- 
urv  act  repealed.  Clay  and  Tyler  in  opposi- 
tion. Tyler  and  his  cabinet  quarrel  over 
Tyler's  bank  vetoes. 

1842.  The     Ashburton-Webster     treaty.       Protective 

tariff  law  enacted.  State  debts  repudiated. 
Dickens  visits  America.  The  Dorr  rebellion 
in  Rhode  Island.  Dr.  Whitman  travels  on 
horseback  from  Oregon  to  St.  Louis. 

1843.  Webster  resigns  as  Secretary  of  State. 

1844  Treaty  of  Annexation  with  Texas,  rejected  by 
the  Senate.  Clay  defeated  by  Polk  for  pres- 
ident. The  telegraph  first  used,  Baltimore 
to  Washington.  The  Democratic  campaign 
cry,  "54o  40'  or  fight." 

1845.  Joint  resolution  for  annexing  Texas.  Polk's 
four  great  measures  announced  to  Bancroft; 
Tariff  reduction,  acquisition  of  California, 
the  independent  or  sub-treasury  restored, 
Oregon  boundary  settled;  all  accompl  sheJ. 
Florida  admitted  as  a  state.  Texas  admitted 
as  a  state. 

1S46.  The  independent  treasury  act  passed.  The  Ore- 
gon boundary  line  settled.  A  treaty  with 
Great  Britain.  California  and  New  Mexico 
seized.  The  so-called  free-trade  tariff  passed. 
The  "Wilmot-Proviso"  proposed.  Howe  in- 
vents the  sewing  machine.  Iowa  admitted 
as  a  state. 

1847.  Victories  over  Mexico.    Renown  of  Taylor  and 

Scott.  Lincoln  first  appears  in  national  pol- 
itics.    Douglas'  first  term  in  the  Senate. 

1848.  Taylor     elected     over     Cass.      The    "Free-Soil" 

movement;  Van  Buren  its  candidate.  Treaty 
of  Guadaloupe  Hidalgo.  February  23,  J.  Q. 
Adams  dies.  Calhoun  asserts  right  of  slave- 
holder to  take  his  slave  into  any  territory 
of  the  United  States.  Discovery  of  gold  in 
California.  The  Mormons  emigrate  to  Utah. 
Wisconsin  admitted  as  a  state. 

1849.  Struggle  in  Congress  continues  over  organiza^ 

tion  of  the  territories.  Rush  to  gold  fields 
of  California. 

1850.  Webster's    "7th    of    March"    speech.      Seward's 

"Higher  Law"  speech,  March  11.  ,  Clay's 
compromise  adopted.  California  a  free  state. 
Slave  trade  in  District  of  Columbia  to  end. 
Texas  boundary  settled.  Texas  paid  $10,0 J0,- 
000.    Utah  and  New  Mexico  territories  with- 


24:0  CHRONOLOGY 

out  specification  as  regards  slavery.  Fugi- 
tive slave  law.  The  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty. 
Death  of  President  Taylor.  Fugitive  slave 
excitement  begins.     Population,  23,191,876. 

1851.  "Filibustered"    invade    Cuba.      Letter   postage 

reduced  to  three  cents.  Disunion  threatened. 
Visit  of  Kossuth.  Webster's  Hulseman  let- 
ter.    Maine  liquor  law. 

1852.  Scott     and     Pierce.       The     "Tweedle-Dee     and 

and  Tweedle-Dum"  campaign.  Scott  carried 
only  four  states,  Kentucky  and  Tennessee, 
Massachusetts  and  Vermont.  Clay  and  Web- 
ster die.    "Uncle  Tom's  Cabin." 

1853.  The  Koszta  difficulty.     The  Gadsden  purchase. 

1854.  The  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.     Dougias  urges  his 

"popular  sovereignty"  doctrine.  "Filibuster- 
ing" ag-ainst  Cuba.  The  Know-Nothings 
come  into  being.  The  Republican  party  or- 
ganized. The  "Ostend  Manifesto."  The 
struggle  begins  in  Kansas.  Treaty  with 
Japan. 

1855.  Personal  liberty  laws  in  northern  states.     The 

"New  England  Colonization"  society.  Mis- 
souri invades  Kansas.  Banks  elected  speaker 
of  the  House. 

1856.  Wm.  Walker  in  Nicaragua.     Sumner  assaulted 

by  Brooks.  Whigs  and  Americans  nominate 
Fillmore.  Republicans  nominate  Fremont. 
Democrats  nominate  and  elect  Buchanan. 
The  first  geographical  party  campaign.  Sack 
of  Lawrence,  Kansas.  Threats  of  disunion 
should  Fremont  be  elected. 

1857.  March   6,    the   Dred   Scott   Decision.      The   Le- 

compton  constitution.  Douglas  breaks  -rath 
Buchanan.  The  new  Tariff  Act.  Duties  | ■vv- 
ered.    The  panic  and  crisis. 

1858.  Bebellion  in   Utah.     Atlantic  Cable  laid.     The 

Lincoln-Douglas  debate.  Seward's  "irrepres- 
sible conflict"  speech  at  Rochester.  Minne- 
sota admitted  as  a  state. 

1859.  John    Brown     invades     Virginia.      Election   of 

Speaker.  Helper's  "Impending  Crisis." 
Great  Excitement  in  Congress.  Oregon  ad- 
mitted as  a  state. 

1860.  Lincoln  and  the  Republicans.     No  slave  exten- 

sion. Douglas  and  "Popular  Sovereignty" 
Democrats.  Bell  and  the  "Union."  Breck- 
enridge  and  slave  extension.  Secession  ordi- 
nance passed  by  South  Carolina.  Various 
plans  for  compromise.  J.  J.  Crittenden. 
Population,  31,443,321.  -> 

1861.  The   Peace  Conference;    all   plans   fail.     Davis 

elected  President  of   the  Southern   Confed- 


CHRONOLOGY  £4? 

eracy.     Attack   on   Sumpter.     War.      Kansas 
admitted  as  a  state.     Lincoln  inaugurated 

1862.  The   "Monitor." 

1863.  Emancipation    proclamation.      National     Bank 

Act.     Gettysburg.     Draft  riots. 

1864.  Lincoln    re-elected.    Maryland    abolishes     slav- 

ery.    Confederacy  split  by   Sherman. 

1865.  War  ends;    Assassination  of  Lincoln;    Johnson 

President.     Thirteenth  Amendment 

1866.  Atlantic    Cable. 

1867.  Alaska  bought. 

1868.  Impeachment    of    President    Johnson.     Four. 

teenth  Amendment  adopted. 

1869.  Grant   President.     Pacific  railroad   completed 

1870.  Fifteenth      Amendment.         Treaty      for      San 

Domingo.     Population,   38,558,371. 

1871.  All    states    again    in    Congress.      Chicago    fire 

The   Washington   Treaty. 

1872.  Geneva  Award.     Boston  fire 

1873.  Panic. 

1876.  The   Centennial   at   Philadelphia.      Colorado    a 

state. 

1877.  Electoral  Commission;  Hayes  President.     Rail- 

way strike. 

1878.  Bland  Silver  Bill. 

1879.  Specie  payments  resumed. 

1880.  Population,  50,155,783. 

1881.  Garfield  President — assassinated;  Arthur  Pres- 

ident. 
1883.  Civil  Service  Act.    Letter  postage  two  cents. 
1885.  Cleveland  President. 
1887.  Inter-State  Commerce  Act. 

1889.  Harrison  President. 

1890.  Population,  62,622,250. 

1893.  Columbian  Fair.     Cleveland  President. 

1897.  McKinley  President. 

1898.  Spanish  War.     Hawaii  annexed. 

1899.  Annexation  of  Islands. 


J.  H.  Miller's  Publications. 

PARTIAL  LIST. 


HISTORY 
SOURCE   MATERIAL. 

I.  A  Survey  of  American  History,  Caldwell.  Source 
extracts.     (New  edition)      Price,  75c. 

II.  Some  Great  American  Legislators,  Caldwell. 
Source  extracts,  treating  of  ten  American  Statesmen,  from 
Gallatin  to  Blaine.     (New  edition).     Price,  75c. 

III.  Territorial  Development,  Caldwell.  Source  ex- 
tracts ti  eating  of  Colonial  Boundaries,  Northwest  Territory, 
Louisiana  Purchase,  Alaska,  Hawaii,  the  Philippines,  etc. 
Valuable  for  class  or  library.     Price,  75c. 

IV.  American  History,  Caldwell.  For  high  school 
use.     Compcsed  of  Vol.  I.  and  Vol.  III.     Price,  $1.25. 

V.  Greek  and  Roman  Civilization,  Fling.  A  collec- 
tion of  source  material  in  ten  chapters,  touching  upon  salient 
topics  of  Grecian  and  Roman  history.     Price,  60c. 

VI.  Civilization  in  the  Middle  Ages,  Guernsey  Jones, 
Ph.D.     Source  extracts      Price,  60c. 

VII.  A  Survey  of  English  History,  Mary  Tremain. 
Covers  whole  period  of  English  history.  Extracts  from  pub- 
lic documents.     Invaluable  for  collateral  study.    Price,  75c. 

METHOD. 

Studies  in  European  and  American  History.    F.  M. 

Fling  and  H.  W.  Caldwell.  A  manual  setting  forth  the 
princip'es  and  plans  of  the  "Source  Study"  method.  $1.00. 
Outline  of  Historical  Method.  F.  M.  Fling.  A  series 
of  papers  on  Criticism  of  Sources,  Synthetic  Operations,  etc. 
Prof.  Edw.  Bourne  (Yale)  says:  "I  shall  use  'Historical 
Method'  in  one  or  more  of  my  courses."     Price,  60c. 

ENGLISH. 

Studies  in  Literature  and  Composition.  W.  H.  Skin- 
ner. A  text  for  first  year  of  high  school.  Also  a  valuable 
manual  for  any  teacher  of  English.     Price,  90c 

High  School  Exercises  in  Literature.  L.  A.  Sherman, 
Ph.  D.  This  will  consist  of  a  series  of  practical  exercises 
that  may  be  given  to  a  class  in  any  preparatory  school.  It 
will  contain  about  150  pages.     (Ready  August  15.) 

Questions  on  the  Art  of  Shakespeare.  L.  A.  Sherman, 
Ph.D.  Hamlet,  Julius  Caesar,  each,  15c;  The  Winter's 
Tale,  Cymbeline,  Othello,  Antony  and  Cleopatra,  each,  10c. 
Sample  pages  free. 

Inductive    Studies   in    Browning.    H.   C.   Peterson, 
Ph.D.     This  edition  for  school  and  college  use  contains  21 
of  the  most  artistic  of  Browning's  poems,  with  notes  and 
several  hundred  analytic  questions.     Price,  80c. 
ADDRESS 

Ainsworth  &  Co.,  378-88  Wabash  Ave.,  Chicago,  111. 


American  History  Studies. 

H.  W.  CALDWELL,  A.M. 

Professor  of  American  History,  University  of  Nebraska. 

Extracts  from  the  sources  of  American  History,  Early 
Laws,  Treaties  State  Papers,  Letters,  Speeches,  etc. — 
Single  copy,  5c;  10  or  more  copies  of  one  number,  4c.  each. 
These  are  used  in  all  grades  of  schools,  from  the-rural  school 
to  the  University. 

Vol.  I.    A  Survey  of  American  History. 

1&97-1898— No.  I.  Founding  of  the  Colonies.  ^  No.  II.  De- 
velopment of  Union  among  the  Colonies.  No.  III. 
Causes  of  the  Revolution.  No.  IV.  Formation  of  the 
Constitution.  No.  V.  Growth  of  Nationality.  No.  VI. 
Slavery  (1).  No.  VII.  Slavery  (2).  No.  VIII.  Civil 
War  and  Reconstruction.  No.  IX.  Foreign  Relations. 
No.  X.  Industrial  Developments.  Bound  Volume,  75c. 
[Extra.   Early  Colonial  Laws,  5c] 

Vol.  II.    Some  Great  Legislators. 

1898-1899— No.  I.  Gallatin.  No.  tl.  J.  Q.  Adams.  No. 
III.  Clay.     No.  IV.  Webster.     No.  V.  Calhoun.     No. 

VI.  Sumner.     No.  VII.    Douglas.     No.  VIII.  Seward. 
No.  IX.  Chase.     No.  X.  Blaine.     Bound  Volume,  75c. 

Vol.  III.    Territorial  Development.   Expansion. 

1899-1900— No.  I.  Territorial  Boundaries.  No.  II.  First 
National  Boundaries.  No.  III.  The  Northwest  Terri- 
"tory.  No.  IV.  Acquisition  of  Louisiana.  No.  V.  Pur- 
chase of  Florida.     No.  VI.  Annexation  of  Texas.     No. 

VII.  Annexation  ot  California  and  New  Mexico.     No. 

VIII.  Annexation    of    California   and   Oregon.      No. 

IX.  Alaska  and  Hawaii.     No.  X.  West  Indies  and  the 
Philippines.     Bound  Volume,  75c. 


European  Leaflets. 

Single  copy,  5c;  ten  or  more  of  one  number  at  4c.  each. 

1.  Greek  and  Roman  Civilization, 

10  Nos.— Bound  Volume,  60  cents. 

2.  Civilization  of  the  Middle  Ages, 

10  Nos. — Bound  Volume,  60  cents. 

8.  A  Survey  of  English  History, 


ADDRESS 

Ainsworth  &  Co.,  378-88  Wabash  Ave.,  Chicago,  III 


